From derekmc@ix.netcom.comSun Apr 7 17:20:01 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 18:27:22 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: letters
My dear Jackson
I fail to see the relevance of your point that the Guardian was not
aware of a particular tablet. HE obviously therefore chose to devolve
the responsibility to the House of Justice as it did not fall within
His realm of responsibilty.The Master's tablet enables the House to
develop the Baha'i position even more fully That tells me we should
have a great respect for the Guardian's rulings as HE clearly knew
exactly where His role was.
Whether you or I can determine which of the letters written on behalf
of the Guardian, we should question or accept I suggest that is a real
'can of worms'. THe House of Justice does appear to me very clearly
sees how its role should develop in determining which of the
Guardians'ruling are temporay and permanent, that requires informed
submission to the Will of God on both our parts.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
PS I will reply later to your item on the Right of God.
There have been some very extravagant statements made in some recent
posts about the status of letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi.
Apart from the theological issues these statements raise there is the
very simple issue that they do not stand up to a test of
facticity.
A letter (which does have a signed postscript) written on behalf of
Shoghi Effendi to the NSA of Australia and New Zealand in 1956 states:
As regards the question the Auckland Assembly has asked about
vivisection, there is nothing on this subject in the Baha'i teachings.
At
a future date such matters will no doubt be taken up by the
International
House of Justice. (Arohanui, p69)
However, a tablet to Ella Goodall Cooper states:
To the people of truth animal, like unto man, is very dear. Therefore,
man should be kind to both, man and animal, and should strive as much
as
possible towards the comfort and protection of animals.
As to vivisection, however, it is productive of scientific discoveries
and medical advances which contribute to the welfare of all mankind.
Perhaps through the vivisection of one animal discoveries may be made
which will become the cause of life to a billion of people.
Although this operation is harmful in particular, its advantage is
universal, that is, it is advantageous to all humanity. This
vivisection
is even useful to the animal world. From this standpoint of universal
advantage it is permissible, although it may be harmful in particular.
Because the operation on that animal gives results which are very
great.
For example, the vivsection of a wolf, while it is well anaesthetized,
may discover the source of a disease from which malignant disease
billions (of animals or men) have suffered and perished. Now this
vivisection becomes the cause that billions will be protected from
perishing. If an epidemic attacks a flock, it would be permissible to
sacrifice one sheep for the safety of the flock; otherwise, that pest
will destroy all the flock including even that sheep which should be
sacrificed.
Vivisection, however, should be confined to injurious animals, and it
also should be performed with the greatest degree of carefulness, that
is, the animal should be well anaesthetized and rendered insensible.
It
is permissible to sacrifice the injurious animals for the safety of the
people.
Based on these significant points of wisdom it is permissible that the
harmful animals undergo vivisection to safeguard the good health of the
world of humanity. This injurious animal, if he lives freely, will
become the cause of destruction to a thousand other animals. For
instance, if vivisection be practised on a wolf, it may become the
cause
of protecting a thousand sheep which he (that wolf) may tear. So even
the death of this (wolf) will cause the continuation of the life of
thousands of other animals, especially when it gives rise to scientific
and medical discoveries which will be advantageous to all mankind till
eternity.
..
This is not an inconsequential tablet with a passing mention of the
subject. On the contrary, it is an extended statement of considerable
importance for developing a Baha'i position on the ethics of biomedical
research in animal models.
The tablet was translated by Aziz'Ullah Khan S. Bahadur on 23 July 1921
in Haifa. The original with 'Abdu'l-Baha's signature exists.
It is clear as the sun at high noon that the statement "about
vivisection, there is nothing on this subject in the Baha'i teachings"
is
not factually correct. I do not think anyone who relied upon such a
statement would be at fault if they had sincerely assumed that it was
correct. However, I also think that we have a collective
responsibility
to compile and make available the data that allows us to know whether
such statements are correct or not, and to develop a methodology for
dealing with the essentially epistolary texts of the faith in a way
that
is both doctrinally and rationally sound.
This situation does not present me with any problem. I see no reason
why
Shoghi Effendi should have automatically known about a single tablet,
however detailed, written while he was at university in England.
Indeed,
there were a number of occasions on which Shoghi Effendi was asked a
question about a tablet and asked to have a copy of the original sent
to
him before he could answer as he had not seen the particular tablet.
There is even one case where the letter on his behalf states that such
and such is probably the meaning but send the original, followed by a
second letter on his behalf which gives a different interpretation
after
seeing the original than had been given based on the quoted
translation.
As in the case here about vivisection,
there are other letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi that show a
lack of familiarity with a tablet answering the question (there is
another example a few pages earlier in Arohanui).
It is quite clear that Shoghi Effendi did not consider himself to have
an
inherent or automatic acquaintance with the entire corpus of the
writings
and readily demonstrable from particular cases that this was so.
Interpretation can only be done on the basis of something to interpret.

Before we can state that something in a letter written on behalf of
Shoghi Effendi constitutes an 'interpretation' one of the questions
that
needs to be answered is how does this letter relate to the corpus.
Jackson

From Wilgar123@aol.comSun Apr 7 17:20:17 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 22:28:02 -0500
From: Wilgar123@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Augustine
Dear Terry,
I enjoyed your analysis of Augustine. I have always found him an
interesting personality. I agree with your insight that his early
permissiveness goes part way to explaining his later ascetic formulations. It
seems that he was always prone to Either/Or solutions. Indeed his flirtation
with Manicheism would indicate such. One thing that has always struck me
about his Confessions is that he seemed to have very little to say about
those whom he might have harmed. His desire for forgiveness always tends to
focus on the damage he has done to his own soul. At one time I thought that
this might be a result of his conclusion that spiritually speaking he could
not really harm others, as God's justice would not allow for such, and that
he could only harm himself, but his later ideas related to predestination
etc. made me skeptical. In any case, thanks. Love and laughter,
Bill Garlington

From sscholl@jeffnet.orgSun Apr 7 17:25:23 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 23:49:04 -0800
From: White Cloud Press
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Internal Consistency
Dear T-People,
In Jim H's recent post he notes, following the House of Justice, that
Baha'is should not be trying to conform the Baha'i Revelation to current
standards or their own individual views. I have never quite understood what
the House means by this as it seems to me that in a Guardianless world we
have no choice but to use our mind, heart, and conscience to come to grips
with the revelation and that individual Baha'is have a duty to raise their
voices within the community to express their views in order for there to be
true consultation, which then leads to the process of renewal, growth, and
development. But I digress. The issues I was getting at in the discussion
on moral consistency do not deal with the need to make the Baha'i view
consistent with contemporary posititions on this or that topic, but
internal consistency within the guiding Baha'i principles and values
enshrined within our sacred texts as well as with stated positions by the
central figures or the Head of the faith on various topics. Thus, if Baha'i
institutions sign on or endorse the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
but fail to abide by it, then there is a problem of consistency. If the
Baha'i teachings proclaim equality of rights and opportunities among the
sexes (which Abdu'l-Baha clearly does) then exclude women from an elected
body, then there is a problem of consistency.
And, yes, consistency is not always a virtue. As I tried to note before, I
don't think any individual or collective body can be perfect and one not
describe an individual or collective body as immoral if an inconsistency is
discovered in the moral and ethical arena. But when such inconsistencies
exist there will be a need to face it and deal with it. To run from it or
hide it from the world or to wish it away is pathological and unhealthy.
Steve Scholl

From sscholl@jeffnet.orgFri Apr 5 17:02:33 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 11:35:14 -0800
From: White Cloud Press
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Wilmette
Dear Juan . . .,
In a recent message to Wilmette I described the Bausani project. Yes, this was a mistake. A staffer wrote back immediately the following:

"Now, there is an inevitable and less pleasant issue that I should also raise: what do we need to do where review of this manuscript is concerned? Is the Baha'i chapter by Bausani? If so, we can assume it was reviewed by the Italian NSA long ago and thus it is not an issue (or, possibly that it was published without a formal review and presumably no one objected to his comments, so it received a sort of posthumous "pass"). Of course, it would take me about an hour to settle the matter by reading the manuscript, and probably the result would be to everyone's satisfaction (who am I to argue with Bausani?).

There is also the question of any Baha'i content added by Juan and John, which, according to the guidelines, must be reviewed. I am willing to set up a review committee of you, John, Juan, and me to review the book. How does that sound? Feel free to copy this e-mail to John and Juan if you wish."

So, this cat is out of the bag. Well, it has been out for some time as I have been sending out notices of the book with all of our Library of Persia materials for over a year now . . . I await your . . . respected thoughts.

Steve

From 73043.1540@compuserve.comSun Apr 7 17:26:06 1996
Date: 07 Apr 96 10:06:51 EDT
From: John Dale <73043.1540@compuserve.com>
To: BAHA'I-TALISMAN-LIST
Subject: Aquinas - Sheer Joy - Matthew Fox, Hartshorne
Dear Terry and Other Friends,
I much enjoyed your post, Terry, about Aquinas. And I enjoyed you giving
us some of your background about who you are as a human being and how the
Baha''i Faith fits into our personal history as human beings.
My own background is Mid-West Methodist (as a child). At a very early
age (7) I had an experience that led me to know and to love Christ but to know
that He was no longer to be found in the Church, relatively speaking. This set
me off on a very independent course of serach. By young adolescence I was
reading Ouspensky's Tertium Organum, Gurdjieff's All and Everything, and several
of the Persian Sufi mystics, including Rumi and Hafez. When around 11 or 12 I
read "Christ and Baha'u'llah" by Townsend, it was as if a "door" opened up and
my inner world was introduced to a God that was progressive and that was not
limited to the past. That "open door to new realities" and the conviction of
the value of the present and the future and of each human being's being able to
contribute something of inestimable value if only they would put themselves in
front of the task of doing God's work, has stayed with me all my life and has
informed my activities as a Baha'i.
Later, when I encountered the actual practices brought by Gurdjieff from
various traditions in the form of attention exercises, sacred dances based on
the enneagram, and so on, and the various ideas to be found in his presentations
that spoke of people being most of their lives in only the lowest two states of
consciousness out of the four that are inherent in the human design, and that
one must work on one's own being in order to reach the unity and "depth" that
makes the other two states possible, I realized that this was really very much
what I was after. At the same time, I felt like the Baha'i Covenant and the
unity of the Baha'i comunity and protection afforded by the Universal House of
Justice was really also another part of that "integral spiritual world" that I
yearned to dwell in. I never felt complete without both wings, so to speak,
namely the wing of inner work on my own being and the striving to "know ever
more and more about the laws of World-creation and World-maintenance", and the
wing of collective activity guided by God to establish the Most Great Peace.
Gurdjieff offered a cosmic perspective on human life which blended in
with the fact that at the age of ten in 1956 with two other slightly older boys
I had witnessed a UFO in Cincinnati, Ohio -- nothing spectacular, just an orange
circular disk that travelled silently across the sky. But I took a great
interest in this idea of extra-terrestrial life, read a lot of science fiction,
and a friend of mine who went on to major in astronomy and I spent hours at
night photographing meteor showers and lunar eclipses, and grinding a mirror for
a 12-inch telescope.
The Baha'i Faith told me what needed to be done on Earth in collective
terms in the present moment. Gurdjieff in a literary way filled in a cosmic
perspective on the past and on why human psyches were in such a state of
objective unproductiveness, and the very form of his tales put the reader at a
kind of detached extraterrestrial distance from the ordinary state of
consciousness that constitutes the usual arising point of our thoughts and
emotional reactions.
In college I majored in philosophy and came across the works of John
Godolphin Bennett, who had studied with Gurdjieff and whose structuralist
approach to reality outlined in The Dramatic Universe was premised on the same
idea that to really understand more, one had to _be_ more. Bennett was and
still is a spiritual hero to me for the project that he attempted in that work,
and for the many lines of insights which he opened up and which still go begging
for people to follow up on. He has figured in many of my own personally
significant dreams, some of which contained profound lessons for me.
I say all this to our friends out in Talisman-land, of whatever
persuasion in current debates, because each of us is a human being with a
complex history of influences and insights, and all of us need to work on
ourselves so that the ration of garbage to gold is constantly increasing. We
need to understand that the reason we take different points of view on certain
subjects is not just because of the logic of the situation but also because we
are historically shaped beings.
In line with your interest in Aquinas, Terry, I'm sure you're already
aware of Matthew Fox's new book called "Sheer Joy: Conversations with Thomas
Aquinas on Creation Spirituality." It is a remarkable work in which Fox creates
a dialogue with Aquinas using actual quotes from Aquinas's writings, some of
which are newly translated into English.
Creation Spirituality is something that every Baha'i needs to know about
to counterbalance the tendencies in various theological backgrounds to forget
the immanence of the Creation within the Deity. The Creation is not something
like a painting created by artistic whim one day and then put off into a closet
until the artist chooses to revisit it and add some more to it. That is not
what progressive revelation is about. As writers such as Gurdjieff try to
clarify, there is something more significant taking place here, and there is
genuine value in our existence as finite creative beings.
To most of Western thinking, the idea that we must _be_ more if we would
understand more, is absent, and the emphasis is on the clarity of ideas, their
self-consistency, their falsifiability, and so on. However, one writer who
understands that the way to be more is in part through showing that the old
absolutist notions of omnipotence, omniscience, Creator-Creation disinctions,
etc do not work is Charles Hartshorne. He is one of the chief proponents of
what is called panentheism and in his system of thought, the metaphysical
category of creativity is very central. I recommend his work very highly to the
Baha'i community in terms of rexamining the old absolutist metaphysical notions
that form the foundation of Western thought and which tend to inform the
intellectual background of Baha'i translations into English and other Western
languages.
His works include
"The Divine Relativity: A Social Conception of God";
"Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes";
"The Logic of Perfection";
"Existence and Actuality";
"Anselm's Discovery";
"Insights and Oversights of Great Thinkers: An Evaluation of Western
Philosophy";
"The Darkness and the Light" (his own philosophical biography);
"Wisdom as Moderation" (really a must for Baha'is);
"Creativity in American Philosophy";
"Beyond Humanism: Essays in the Philosophy of Nature";
"Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism";
"A Natural Theology for Our Times";
"Creative Synthesis and Philosophical Method"; and, finally
:Aquinas to Whitehead: Seven Centuries of Metaphysics of Religion".
He also wrote a book about bird songs, but I do not have it. He also edited the
works of Charles Sanders Peirce and put together the best collection yet of
diverse philosophical writings on God, called "Philosophers Speak of God."
Hartshorne's works are for eminently readable and enjoyable. To me he
emanates light and compassion. He studied Buddhism and is thus not limited to
simply the Western tradition.
Let me also recommend to Baha'is with an interest if game theory the
fascinating book by Steven J. Brams, "Superior Beings: If They Exist, How Would
We Know". He game-theoretical work on "the revelation game" is eye-opening.
Brams has done pioneering work that is of profound significance for conflcit
resolution. Perhaps we should hire him! :-))
When we do all these postings, sometimes I think we should step back from
the immediacy of the issue and tell each other who we are, where we have been,
and what we have experienced.
That's how we establish more a sense of community.
Till later ...
John Dale

From derekmc@ix.netcom.comSun Apr 7 17:27:42 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 10:53:16 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Response to re. Right of God.
Message: 507
To: talisman
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
Subject: Re: "Right of God"
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 17:15:43 -0500 (EST)
My dear Jackson
.....................................................................
On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, DEREK COCKSHUT wrote:
> genders. I see it more as a papering over of the problem. It could
well=
=20
> be that just as when we become worthy of the Laws they are given to
us.=
=20
> I quote the example of the Right of God being given to the whole
Baha=92i=
=20
> World when we had matured sufficiently. Does that mean when we
have=20
.......................................................................
Your comment
The law of Huquq-u-llah was given to the world with the revelation.
Huquq=
=20
was collected in the US during the lifetime of 'Abdu'l-Baha
and forwarded to him for use in humanitarian projects. =20
.......................................................................
Reply
Although technically the Right of God applied when it was revealed in
the Kitab-i-Aqdas.The Blessed Beauty for many years in spite of
requests from the Iranians friends would not allow it to be paid. The
first western believer to pay the Right of God with the permission of
the Master was Thomas Breakwell who has the station of the first
English believer. Although payments were made by western Baha’is during
the ministry of the Master it is not correct to describe those has
‘full’ payments of the Right of God. If the western Baha’is especially
the ones in the USA many of whom very wealthy had paid the Right of God
then the financal position of the Faith would have radically changed.
The fact that you correctly point out monies were collected for
humanitarian projects and accepted for such shows that such offerings
were not the Right of God which is offered without earmarking.
The Guardian did not require western Baha’is to pay the Right of God
during his ministry. Individuals of course of their own volition did
make payments but the method required to do your own personal taxation
of your wealth was for all intent and purposes unknown. The Baha’i
world after an education process by the House of Justice started paying
the Right of God after the general release of the Kitab-i-Aqdas in
English in 1993.
Therefore my comment when we became worthy of the Law it was given to
us is valid in the context of my orginal post.
......................................................................
A linear idea of the 'maturing'
development of the Baha'i community does not work. There are many
areas where understanding and practice deteriorated, in some there was
a
later revival, in some there has still not been one. These 'revivals'
do
not constitute a 'giving' of the law to the Baha'i world but a
realization
that something that was not being done should have been. This might
be=20
considered a growth in maturity, or a relapse into maturity, but it
would=
=20
surely be preferable not to have lost the 'maturity' in the first
place.
Jackson
....................................................................
Reply:
Development of a religious community can not be linear and I do not
believe I even indicated that. The Worldwide Baha’i community has gone
through major growth and development over the past 100 years.To deny
that is to deny an historical fact. You can not compare the Baha’i
communities in 1910 to the Baha’i communities of today whether it is in
the USA, the rural areas of India or Africa. There was none in India
and Africa and much of the practices in the USA Baha’i community we
would find objectionable today. I do not think segregated 19 day feasts
are exactly in keeping with the principle of the oneness of mankind.
Nor do I think being a Baha’i and a practicing member of a Christian
Sect is an acceptable way to put into practice the laws and teachings
of Baha’u’llah. The Baha’i community in the 30 plus years I have been a
Baha’i has changed and matured beyond ones imagination do not accept
your analysis that we are undergoing ‘revivals’. This is a religion
primarily of first generation believers in that the majority of those
who are in the Religion have accepted it in their lifetime coming from
a different religious tradition. It is obvious that the way we practice
our devotion aspects of religious community is sadly lacking.That is
because we have not world-wide but especially in the USA the
exhortation in the Kitab-i-Aqdas to hold daily dawn prayers in the
community. That has never happened in the West and even today I do not
know of one community in the USA who is doing that. When that occurs I
believe we will reach our next stage of development.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
......................................................................

From brburl@mailbag.comSun Apr 7 17:31:12 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 13:25:23 -0500
From: Bruce Burrill
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Moral consistency
Richard C. Logan,
> "I suggest you read the Kitab-i-Iqan before coming to such a
conclusion. All of have admired you insightful explanations, but,
Baha'u'llah elucidates a variety of stations that the Manifestations of
God can rightly claim for themselves. The purpose of Avatars,
Buddha's, or Prophets to a large degree, as I believe Baha'u'llah has
argued, Is to give an ever-widening context for the message of God.
That only makes sense that the human race develope a standard of
Oness and Unity that conforms to their best interests. We are no longer
living in the time of The Buddha and we need a linguistic technology
that can serve all humanity, not simply those who prefer Buddhist
culture. We are living in a one world milieu now and we need a basis
for establishing its organic center. No one is being asked to give
anything up. And that is how it must be. But the comparisons of the
differences in language need not lead us to acceptance or rejection of
Baha'u'llah." <
Interesting to read this after very recently reading Scholl's statement:
> "...This combined with many Baha'is arrogance toward other faiths
as being superceded by Baha'i or that other faiths are good but infantile
compared to Baha'i as the latest revelation does tend to turn off folks
who study religions academically, scholars who know that the great
traditions are great partly due to their ability to adapt and change and
renew themselves to meet the challenges of every time." <
A couple of points. How Baha'i presents its notion of "Manifestations
of God" in relation to god and to people is not congruent with how the
mythical Krishna of the Gita is presented as Vishnu, god itself. The
orthodox Hindu would likely argue that the Baha'i notion of
"Manifestation of God" doesn't quite get it right being too limited, not
expansive enough to capture the truth as they see it and as put forth in
the Gita and other Hindu texts.
> "We are no longer living in the time of The Buddha and we need a
linguistic technology that can serve all humanity, not simply those who
prefer Buddhist culture. We are living in a one world milieu now and
we need a basis for establishing its organic center. No one is being
asked to give anything up. And that is how it must be. But the
comparisons of the differences in language need not lead us to
acceptance or rejection of Baha'u'llah." <
I have heard this any number of times from Baha'is over the last twenty
plus years. It is to the point I can only refer to this as Baha'i cant.
Let me quote at length from Juan Cole's recent effort:
------------------------------
I think this theological liberalism helps make religion plausible
to thinking people, whereas fundamentalist insistence that everything in
scripture is revealed truth and trumps all other sorts of knowledge
drives thinking people out of religion. In short, I think the 40%
atheism rate in France was produced in some large part by the
hidebound rigidity of the Roman Catholic church. And I think France
is humankind's future to some large extent. Both Catholics and Baha'is
take heart from concentrating on teaching illiterate peasants in the global
South. But the peasants are all moving to the cities. Their children may
be factory workers and literate. Their grandchildren may be white
collar, educated persons not so different from the French atheists.
So the *long-term* problem is not in finding a way to make the
Baha'i faith plausible to illiterate peasants, though village teaching is
praiseworthy and I have done a good deal of it myself. The *long-term*
problem is finding a way to make the Baha'i faith plausible to 22 million
French atheists (the other 60% of the French are not exactly devout
believers; only something like 12% even attend Mass regularly). That
Baha'is have so far dismally failed to make any progress whatsoever on
this front is abundantly evident. Blaming the poor French for being
"apathetic" when all we have to offer them is a folk Baha'i theology
consisting of one part fundamentalist Protestantism, one part warmed-
over Catholic antimodernism, and one part Qum-style Shi`ite legalism,
is somewhat unfair, to say the least. The French atheists have heard all
that stuff from their bishops since 1789; they are not impressed. The
Catholic church is collapsing everywhere in the technologically advanced
world, including Quebec and the US and France. For Baha'is to take
up the same cudgels and try to refight the same battles, simply dooms
them to irrelevancy in the Western world. The key questions are how
to have religion without superstition; how to have revelation that does
not constantly produce cognitive dissonance with science. It won't work
simply to dismiss science and its claims (as people on Talisman have
constantly attempted to do); these claims are *very* powerful, and are
not going away. I don't think most scientists, or even most thinking
people, would be content to lead their lives with a split mind, one part
for science and another, contradictory part, for religion, as some
Talismanians apparently do. At some point the two have to be
reconciled, or one is being dishonest with oneself.
----------------------
The point of quoting this is that in France Buddhism is doing quite well,
finding good reception. Are we no longer living in the time of the
Buddha? Says who? On what basis? Baha'is have hardly made
reasonable argument to support this self-serving claim, but I have heard it
repeatedly.
> "We are living in a one world milieu now and we need a basis for
establishing its organic center." <
Certainly, but I have yet to see any evidence that Baha'i is offering
anything so startlingly new and insightful that it will meet that need. At
best it points to that need, which is no small thing, but it strikes me as
woefully inadequate in its insights and understanding of the human
animal.
> "No one is being asked to give anything up." <
Again, one of those things that Baha'is say all the time, but what does
it really mean in the real world. If I were to become a Baha'i, I see that
I would have a lot to give up. I certainly would not want to be a Baha'i
and scholar of Baha'i history. And what I would forfeit from being a
Buddhist by becoming a Baha'i is hardly worth it to me.
Is the time of the Buddha past? Certainly not if you look around you see
his teachings taking hold in the West in a way that strikes me as far
more dramatic and dynamic than Baha'i. Buddhism has been and is very
adaptive, flexible, which both has its draw backs and strengths. It is
what allowed Buddhism to peacefully penetrate country after country,
altering and raising up their cultures.
Bruce

From asadighi@ptialaska.netSun Apr 7 17:32:04 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 10:38:50 -0800
From: asadighi@ptialaska.net
To: Alex Tavangar , Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: FIRE EXTINGUISHER
Dear Sirs,
I do believe that the Covenant is being undermined and challenged continuously
by a subgroup within Talisman. The self-appointed 'loyal opposition' and
'dissident group' is determined to force the Universal House of Justice to
'reform' itself and to be morally consistent with their private agendas and
interpretations. I am vehemently opposed to this. Should I remain silent? You
tell me.
Arsalan

On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, Alex Tavangar wrote:
>At 06:07 PM 4/5/96 -0700, wrote:
>
>>" If two souls quarrel and contend about a question of the Divine
>>Questions, differing and disputing, both are wrong... Should there appear the
>>least trace of controversy, they must remain silent, and both parties must
>>continue their discussions no longer, but ask the reality of the question
>>from the Interpreter. This is the irefutable command!
>> Upon you be Baha El Abha!! "
>>
>> Sadly, there ain't no interpreter to ask these days so I'm certain
>>some individuals will claim this admonition is no longer applicable.
>>Nevertheless I try to abide by it to the best of my ability; It aint always
>>easy.
>>
>
>Here's a quote from Baha'u'llah without a reference to an Interpreter:
>
>" O SON OF DUST! Verily I say unto thee: Of all men the most negligent is
>he that disputeth idly and seeketh to advance himself over his brother.
>Say, O brethren! Let deeds, not words, be your adorning. "
>(Persian Hidden Words, page 5)
>
>
>IMV, the Beloved Guardian has been very kind/generous in translating this
>Hidden Word. The Persian word that he has translated as "negligent"
>[past-ta'rin] is closer to "scum of the earth;" literally, that
>beneath/lower than which there is none.
>
>In the above quote from Abd'u'l-Baha, the part about ending the argument and
>remaining silent does not require the Interpreter. Only the asking of the
>reality of the question needs the Interpreter.
>
>Regards,
>
>ABT
>
>
>
>
From Member1700@aol.comSun Apr 7 17:32:24 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 15:10:15 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: tribunal election
Well, Brent, there is another letter from the Guardian in which he says that
the Supreme Tribunal will one day merge with the House of Justice as one
institution. This has led some Baha'is in Haifa to suggest that may be the
point at which women might be eligible for membership, since there is no
restriction on women's participation in the Supreme Tribunal. (I think that
is a bit much, but interesting.)
There is nothing in the Master's Tablet which would indicate that he is
describing a temporary or intermediate step in the development of
Baha'u'llah's World Order. He say that this is the system of world
government ordained by Baha'u'llah.
Regards,
Tony

From Alethinos@aol.comSun Apr 7 17:33:09 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 01:28:50 -0500
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: UHJ & a New World Order (was Infallibility, women, etc)
Folks:
Perhaps we should discuss this passage. I am sure everyone has read it before
but it seems to bear some weight on our recent heated discourse. (I am sure
it can be explained away by our revisionist brothers and sisters.)
Concerning the Universal House of Justice and the Administrative Order:
The Administrative Order of the Faith of Baha'u'llah must in
no wise be regarded as purely democratic in character inasmuch as
the basic assumption which requires all democracies to depend fundamentally
upon getting their mandate from the people is altogether
lacking in this Dispensation. In the conduct of the administrative
affairs of the Faith, in the enactment of the legislation necessary
to supplement the laws of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the members of the
Universal House of Justice, it should be borne in mind, are not,
as Baha'u'llah's utterances clearly imply, responsible to those whom
they represent, nor are they allowed to be governed by the feelings,
the general opinion, and even the convictions of the mass of the
faithful, or of those who directly elect them. They are to follow,
in a prayerful attitude, the dictates and promptings of their conscience.
They may, indeed they must, acquaint themselves with the
conditions prevailing among the community, must weigh dispassionately
in their minds the merits of any case presented for their
consideration, but must reserve for themselves the right of an
unfettered decision. "God will verily inspire them with whatsoever
He willeth," is Baha'u'llah's incontrovertible assurance. They, and
not the body of those who either directly or indirectly elect them,
have thus been made the recipients of the divine guidance which is
at once the life-blood and ultimate safeguard of this Revelation.
(World Order of Baha'u'llah, page 153)
What part of "this is not a rehash of the old world order" did we not
understand?
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com

From jcdhender@loop.comSun Apr 7 17:53:46 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 12:38:04 -0700
From: The Hendershots
To: 'Talisman'
Subject: Teaching our children and youth
Don Calkins wrote:
First off, Both Shoghi Effendi and Abdu'l-Baha commended teaching friends and
family first, and our own children are the core of our family.
Secondly, these kids (everybody under 30 8-) ) have incredible energy.
With a minimum of direction they can get an incredible amount done.
Thirdly, in my experience, most children and youth are very interested in
spiritual things.
Unfortunately, it appears that most children and youth are either being taken
for granted or otherwise ignored.
Don C
I would love to hear ideas for involving children and youth in the activities of small communities. Our community has two 15 year olds who have recently signed their declaration cards, three 12-13 year olds and a nine year old. We used to have Baha'i school on Sundays, but it was a lot of work, especially since the kids are really on three different levels. Also, only 4 of the children from our community came to the school, and often one or two had youth sports on Sunday. Our community is interested in ways to involve the children in our regular community activities. Any ideas?
Lately, we have asked that one child help with each Feast in some little way. It can be preparing or serving refreshments, choosing readings, playing an instrument, etc.
The nicest thing we did was for the Ascension of 'Abdu'l-Baha. Inspired by the Omaha Baha'i community's program for the Birth of Baha'u'llah, Tony Lee prepared a very simple program for the children from 9 to 10 p.m. Then we took the children home to bed and the adults continued on until 1 a.m. The children's program consisted of each child (there were 8 present) saying a prayer. One read the passage of 'Abdu'l-Baha that ends "I am waiting. I am patiently waiting." And then the children (and after them the adults got a turn) passed a lighted taper and took turns lighting candles to represent the rising or awakening of the souls for whom the Master is waiting. During the candle lighting, we played "Look at Me, Follow Me" from the World Congress CD. The program was very simple and very nice.
Please share any other ways to get the kids involved. Thanks.
Chris Hendershot

From nineteen@onramp.netMon Apr 8 00:53:23 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 96 18:20:56 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Bruce Burrill , Talisman
Subject: Re: Moral consistency
Bruce I'm not asking you to become a Baha'i--I'm just talking about what
I think is going on and what I experience as true.
For me we all belong to humanity--we have no choice in that (as far as I
know). As such, humanity, is our religion period. We have experiences
which we class as Buddhist, Christian, Baha'i ect, but these religious
experiences and belief are same for the aborigone in Australia and his
animist beliefs (which I find very appealing) to the most sophisticated
and abstruse Buddhist expressions. Everyone tends to think they are
right and other other guy is wrong--the zero sum game of religious
ideological competition. I don't see that and I don't place much weight
on the semantic element of language. I think we need a more fuzzy logic
in order to make decisions appropriate for human life so we don't end up
stuck in a circular loop because we treat an instruction too literally.
I think Baha'u'llah summed it up when He wrote:
"How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the
appointed time is come! Even as it has been said:
'"Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can
everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every
timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who
hear it."'
All I can tell you is I have directly perceived the power of
Baha'u'llah's message. In view of this I have tried to understand what
HE SAYS IS GOING ON. He tells us we are all part of the same thing which
makes alot of sense to me.
Quite frankly I see you and myself as belonging to the same human
religion and I'm very happy that you discuss your views with us on this
forum.
Richard

From Wilgar123@aol.comMon Apr 8 00:56:08 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 22:05:15 -0400
From: Wilgar123@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: A Challenge

Dear Friends,
I remember reading somewhere in a recent posting that one does not have to
give up anything to become a Baha'i. The idea was probably in connection with
accepting Baha'u'llah vis a vis ones own religious tradition. This is a
common notion used by many Baha'i teachers, and in spirit I can certainly
agree with it and therefore did not keep the exact reference. The idea,
however, stuck in my mind, and I began playing with it, perhaps even
subconsciously. Today, for some reason, the thought reappeared, and it did so
in a rather unexpected form. It struck me that some, perhaps many, of us do
indeed have to give up something when we become Baha'is, namely the comfort
of religiously associating primarily with people whose ideas and approaches
to ideas are similar to our own. Let me use my own case as an example. When I
became a Baha'i back in the late 60's I did so because I thought I saw in the
words of Baha'u'llah a more "liberal", open-minded approach to religion. I
was somewhat shocked, therefore, when I later found that there were members
of the community who did not share my approach. I struggled with this for a
number of years and finally became inactive. I felt uncomfortable with the
differences of opinion, and in essence I wanted everyone to think just like
me!! Recently I have realized that it is these very differences in approach
that make the Faith applicable to the real world. In its fold one will find
"conservatives," "liberals," "literalists," "pragmatists," "atheists"
(meaning non-theists) etc., and this is a reflection of the diversity of
thought in the real world. I had to decide, therefore, whether I wanted to
remain "comfortable" or live in the real world. It is always easier to be
around those who agree with you, and the real world just doesn't work that
way. Thus I have once again become active, and in so doing now try to
celebrate the differences rather than run from them.
In making this observation I would in no way want to suggest that other
religious communities are one dimensional or that there are not varieties of
approaches to be found within them, but if one looks closely at what is
happening in many religious communities these days there is certainly a
tendency toward factionalizing along lines of disagreement, and I believe
this is so because of what I have stated above - many people feel comfortable
with sameness. As I see it, in the Baha'i Faith we are not allowed this
"luxury." We are called upon to interact not only with Baha'is who come from
greatly diverse backgrounds both religiously and culturally, but with members
of all religions, and to do so in a spirit of fellowship. If that isn't a
challenge, I don't know what is!!!
With love and laughter,
Bill G

From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduMon Apr 8 00:57:43 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 20:54:03 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
Cc: talisman
Subject: Vivisection, and the principle it demonstrates

I'll assume that the Tablet from the Master is authentic. Therefore,
Jackson's point is well taken, with the letter on the Guardian's behalf
stating that there is nothing in the Teachings on the subject. There are
surely other examples; some have been mentioned in the past on Talisman.
Where I have a different view is with where the ultimate responsibility
now lies. Jackson wrote:
> However, I also think that we have a collective responsibility
> to compile and make available the data that allows us to know whether
> such statements are correct or not, and to develop a methodology for
> dealing with the essentially epistolary texts of the faith in a way that
> is both doctrinally and rationally sound.

I think it's fine for us to offer our views on the subject, but I would
add that it is beyond our capacity to ultimately make such distinctions.
The House will surely, sooner or later, have to put forth a position on
one or another important issue, (perhaps this one) where there is such a
conflict to deal with. Somewhere in all of this there comes a point where
it is appropriate for us to be in the place the House mentions in one of
its letters; that we are incapable of making some of the distinctions we
attempt. If we read the very first paragraph of the 5-paragraph summary
of the powers and duties of the House in its Constitution, one of them is
to analyze, coordinate and classify the Writings. I'm not sure if this
issue is an example, or if some other power of the House such as its
legislative power would be called into play.
To the degree that this compiling of data and this methodology would be
offered as an aid to the House in guiding the community, I support it. To
the degree that such analysis is used as support to question the accuracy
of *other* statements by the Guardian, or his overall infallibility, I
think it's harmful. Such statements hurt to read, and I think they
undermine faith and confidence rather than leading to the truth.
Brent

From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduMon Apr 8 00:58:04 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 21:10:37 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Member1700@aol.com
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: tribunal election
On Sun, 7 Apr 1996 Member1700@aol.com tony lee wrote:
> Well, Brent, there is another letter from the Guardian in which he says that
> the Supreme Tribunal will one day merge with the House of Justice as one
> institution.
It is quite complex, sorting out which things mentioned in the various
letters of Shoghi Effendi, will occur in what order in the future. You
have mentioned your own frustration in this regard in the past. I chalk
these up to various stages in a many centuries-long Lesser Peace.
Where's the letter you are referring to? If it's in the compilation on
Peace, that's sufficient; I don't want to ask you to do my research for me.
Brent

From nineteen@onramp.netMon Apr 8 01:06:26 1996
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 22:38:30 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
Cc: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram ,
talisman
Subject: Re: Vivisection, and the principle it demonstrates
I cannot help but agree with Brent, who I believe, has put his finger on
the the part of the problem that disturbs many of the so-called
conservative members of the list--that being--there is a need to debunk
those aspects of the Faith that do not accord with reason according to
INDIVIDUAL STANDARDS. Or that the friends should be DISABUSED of their
ostensible superstitious positions and that the message of the Baha'i
Faith should be re-evaluated and demythologized.
I have thought it might be useful to compile the scores of times I have
come across statements by the Central Figures that advise against, in
the strongest terms, opposition and disharmony with regard to the
institutions. Criticism of the decisions of the local spiritual
assemblies is condemned, let alone the UHJ or the Guardian. I don't see
this being done on AUTHORITARIAN (there should not be challenges to
authority) *mindlessness* grounds, but ETHICAL grounds. The way we
comport ourselves and act in a loving and encouraging manner. THIS IS
NOT TO SAY THAT THINGS OF A SENSITIVE NATURE CANNOT BE DISCUSSED. But
when the discussion of negative and disheartening matters becomes too
much of the focus, I believe it harmful. Cynical assessments only allow
us to excuse our unacceptable behavior as if things were meant to be
that way.
Trying to second guess, and monday morning quarter back the Institutions
may seem the rational right and duty of every scholar, but I do not
believe it will helpful to take that approach. Naturally though, I
believe all should be allowed to follow their own method because forcing
people does not work and would not be just.
Richard

From 0007368608@mcimail.comMon Apr 8 01:06:54 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 96 23:50 EST
From: Dariush Lamie <0007368608@mcimail.com>
To: "talisman@indiana.edu"
Subject: RE. Tribunal election
-- [ From: Dariush Lamie * EMC.Ver #2.3 ] --
Dear Brent and Tony,
Thank you for your posting about Tribunal election subject.
As far as I understand, *Tribunal* that the beloved Guardian talks about is an
independent concept
from UHJ and has nothing to do with the House. The formation of the *Supreme
Tribunal* would be one of the contributing factors to the completion of the
process of the lesser Peace and has no direct intervention of the UHJ in its
formation. The Supreme Tribunal basically would be one of the components of
the Union of the nations of the world or in other worlds the lesser Peace.
In the New world Order of Baha'u'llah we have independent but somehow related
concepts such as Supreme Tribunal, Parliaments, NSAs, UHJ, ... The Supreme
Tribunal will not be created by the Baha'is but it is part of the world
government which will be created by the nations of the world.
Talking about the world government, the beloved Guardian say "will herald the
advent and lead to the final establishment of the World Order of Baha'u'llah".
I will be delighted for any correction and clarification on the above subject.
Regards,
Dariush

From TLCULHANE@aol.comMon Apr 8 01:09:48 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 21:53:57 -0400
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Re: Faith and Modernity
Juan:
I would love to see jaxkson post the letter you mentioned about not
putting to much emphasis on letters written on his behalf . My god ! would
the perception of the faith look different .
I am in the process of re-working parts of the Bahamaiden piece ,
especially the last part about Houses of Worship and Justice as the "form "
of the feminine and masculine principle. I think it will have some bearing on
the reason -revelation argument . For all these months I have been puzzled by
the repeated arguments we dont need any "rights" etc.in the faith . It has
occured to me ,via Wilber , Stan Grov, and Hegel's "aufhern" and Steve
Scholl bugging me about James Hillman ,that this is playing out the dialectic
within the masculine principle. I mean the freedom -order dialectic
sociopolitically and autonomy -obediance one psychologically. This is ,
Ibelieve , where the divine feminine, and its institutional form -House of
worship comes into play. The mystical encounter with the feminine in the
Siyah Chal serves as the ground of being and life. if Houses of Justice give
the masculine principle form , Houses of worship give the feminine principle
form . Without them any significant internal dvelopment let alone any
contribution to the world will be negligible .
The HoJ must incorporate both dimensions of the masculine -freedom and
order and in turn excercise it in the larger context of union with the HoW.
The attempt to deny the freedom/autonomy (rights) dimension, and rely
exclusively on the authority/obediance dimension is tantamount to adenial of
the ontological validity of individuation and the whole project of reason and
science . Both dimensions must ne preserved bofore a union or synthesis and
trancendence can occur . Too often what i hear is the denial of the autonomy
pahse as well as the ignorance of the feminine dimension as a whole . We rae
left with some version of the regress express and primal undiferentiated
consciousness as bahau lahs unity . This is whay gives our language the
uncomfortable "fascist" like quality. I don't know if this is making any
sense . it is one of those things I can see and not yet express well in words
.

I wonder if Shoghi Effendi's Augustine does not come from Gibbon's? and
/or his time at Oxford. I rmember seeing his list of courses in priceless
pearl (I think) and they are waited to classical political philosophy . I
remember taking such courses myself and was introduced formally to Augustine
. I would bet 1920's Britian and its classicist tradition would have done
this as well. At any rate I find the Augustine parallels fascinating. The
old order/new order dualism just fits and is so similiar to Augie . I think
we are going to have to grow up as a community sooner or later and realize
that the first Guardian was meant to be superceeded . Some of his statements
about "future historians" would seem to indicate this in his own work .
Oh I am also struggling- in a good way- with a sense of "revelation" and
what it could mean in relation to reason and the "ontological" validity of
reason and science. When i can get it put into words better I would like to
bounce it off you for your thoughts.
warm regards,
Terry

From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpMon Apr 8 15:22:12 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 16:03:42 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: TLCULHANE@aol.com, friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu, TLCULHANE@aol.com
Subject: Re: Religion,scienceand relig...
Dear Terry:
Your "gentle" critique is quite nice to have. Perhaps we can offer an
example of how to properly discuss. (But maybe not. I love to argue
too much.) Looking through your post, I am in broad agreement with
its central theme: that the Baha'i Faith has much to say to a
scientist interested in both science and religion.
I guibble on some of the particulars, in main because it is important
to distinguish what is meaningful to scientists, and what is not.
An important point is about discussion: scientists have a low regard
for discussions that can not possibly lead to new understandings, which
lead to pointless conflict, exploding tempers, and imposition by fiat
of what the *correct* point of view is.
Metaphysics, religion, politics, all those things which do not allow a
reasoned, logical examination, are, on such grounds, often dismissed
as outside the purview of scientific, and by some accounts, reasoned
discussion. It is on this point where the Baha'i stress on science
and religion is important.
This point is widely misunderstood among the Baha'is, I believe.
Abdu'l Baha has said that if two people simply argue, both are wrong.
Usually, this is dismissed as merely a nice sentiment, but it is
very meaningful from the point of view of how discussions should take
place: if two people are arguing and getting nowhere, it is because
they have failed to agree on what the discussion is about, it is
because they lack criteria for judging when agreement is reached,
and it is because they consequently argue on the basis of their
emotions, not logically. Scientists know, even if they don't always
live up to their knowledge, how to avoid this. And they do it
consistently, over long periods of time, to create new understanding.
> I look forward to your ideas on the science /religion interface. it is
> a shame as Bahai's we have not paid the attention appropriate to what
> scientists and mystic theologians have been discussing in this area
> the past 20 years. The thought of David Bohm is, I believe, quite
> congenial to a nondogmatic, sectarian understanding of true religion
> and science.
[I just read something very interesting: Bohm (who fell afoul of the
McCarthyites around 1950 or so for refusing to sign a loyalty oath at
Princeton and left the United States) apparently is thought to have
helped the Israeli's start their nuclear weapons research program.]
Please keep in mind, and this is very important if you wish to not
make mistakes in talking to scientists, that Bohm's metaphysical
thinking is almost completely ignored by most scientists. It is true,
because of his stature, that physicists are willing to entertain his
ideas a little bit, but they definitely are considered *fringe* ideas,
not at all supportable by widely accepted modern scientific theories.
Mysticism fares considerably more badly. (However, Zen mysticism is
viewed consistently positively!)
It is quite common for religious and metaphysical folks to view the
thinking of some of these scientists with metaphysical ideas as
"scientific" support for their own ideas. It is not at all
viewed that way by mainstream scientists: Bohm's ideas are his own
metaphysical musings.
Metaphysics, by the way, is a dirty word in physics. If you want to
put someone down, you say that their work is "just metaphysics."
The implication is that it doesn't have much to do with physical
reality.

> As for Bohr and Einstein. Their conversations early on in their careers
> were cordial and as you say intense . However I must disagree with the idea
> that they were not quarrelsome. SOme of the accounts by Bohm, a student of
> Einstein's, would bely that fact . By the end of their lives they
> were not on speaking terms and avoided being present at the same
> events.
By the way, Bohm was not Einstein's student. He did work at
Princeton, where Einstein was, and he did give a copy of his
influential text on quantum mechanics to Einstein (who didn't
reply), but apparently, he had no strong relationship with Einstein.
Like many physicists, I think of Einstein and Bohr as being the
two greatest geniuses of the twentieth century. Einstein rejected
quantum mechanics (which he played a seminal role in starting) when
it came into its maturity in the 20's, and carried on a fight against
it until he died. But, he was wrong, we know clearly. I have read
extensively on both of them, especially their dialogues, and haven't
seen anything about them not being on speaking terms. In fact, I
have read quite the opposite to be true, even in Einstein's later
years. Do you have any references?

> Precisely why I believe Baha'u'llah is relevent to this issue is in His
> "standpoint epistemology " or differing stations and capacities of
> individuals. it is not *reality* which is limited or relative but the
> respective stations of individuals which influence the knowledge
> obtainable from reality. If Bohr and Einstein could disagree and
> not speak - a breakdown of consultation, and this is an ethical
> issue, about atomic structure and order in the physical universe
> what might this imply for deeper levels of reality.
Einstein did disagree with quantum mechanics, not with Bohr. And after a
while, he simply could not even present arguments that Bohr had
to even think about to answer. In modern terms, Einstein was the last
of the great thinkers in "classical" physics. Bohr was the first
great thinker in, and inventor of, quantum physics. The shift between
classical and quantum physics is the famous shift that Kuhn labelled
as a "paradigm shift", a name that has stuck in the public's
consciousness.
> After all they were quarreling about the most fundamental but least
> significant component of existence. Once one moves from fundamental to
> significant the level of ethical engagement increases accordingly. By the
> time we are speaking of ultimate meaning, God and the purpose of life the
> ethical issues become more profound and their consequences more significant.
Yes, I follow, and agree with, your argument here. But one point:
physicists tend to see their work, which can be proven right or wrong,
as the more significant.

> Then religion may have something to say to science by meeting
> science on its own ground and raising the level a notch by expecting
> ethical action and reflection from scientists. I do not find the
> role of the prophets in dictating the *nature* of physical
> *reality.*
Generally speaking, although this is changing, scientists don't think
they need to be taught about what is ethical or unethical. Science,
to a degree that is simply not appreciated by nonscientists, is an
international community that is to a very large extent
self-regulating, with its own universal language, and to
a certain degree, independent of nationality and/or creed. Its
standards of truth are not subjective, the scientific community
believes, nor do nonscientists have much to teach about improving
its standards.
But, scientists are often quite aware of the limitations of science.
For example, it does not seem to help in guiding the affairs of man.
(It was over the objections of the scientists that atom bombs were
dropped used Japan. The scientists said that they should have been
dropped on uninhabited islands to show their power, rather than on
cities.) Clearly, science holds little sway in the broader arena
of policy and government.
But, suppose I ask what determines the actions of communities,
governments, peoples, etc. Aren't these "natural" phenomena?
Man, with his independent mind, and the judgement and will that
accompanies it, takes action. But on the basis of what? How
do we understand the greater reality which has structured man
this way? Of this greater reality, science is but one fruit,
and an immature one at that? It is the nature of this greater
reality and our relationship to it that religion, including
Buddhism, addresses.
And the prophetic religions address it in an extremely dynamic way,
using its answers to shape the evolution of societies over thousands of
years, providing a matrix in which the elitist ideas of philosophy and
science become available for all to use. The eastern religions do
so too, but much more so in a way that takes existing "folk religions"
and upgrades into a more universal framework.
Here, I am emphasizing that religion shapes peoples thinking, not just
that of a scientific or an intellectual elite, in a way that no other
system is capable of doing. Why can it do this? The answer that
religion gives (with maybe the sole exception of Theravada Buddhism,
which determinedly avoids giving an answer to the whole question,
prefering an upward pointing finger to a reasoned discussion) is that
it is due to God's will, which is distinct and different than
man's. This type of answer is altogether a different sort of thing
than what scientists find tractable.
> As a result I do not look to Baha'u'llah to tell me whether light is a
> wave or a particle or whether Socrates went to Israel or how many stars have
> intelligent life. I look to Him for ethical guidance and for a way to
> understand the purpose of life and my relationship to *reality*. He
> could not explain *reality * to me if he wanted to. It's a whole lot
> bigger than my mind or anyone elses.
But, for many of us, this is very important. Briefly, whether
Socrates physically went to Israel or not is unimportant. But, the
question as to whether his thought is influenced by the thinkers and
prophets of Israel is important. The claim in the Writings, very
clearly, is that his thought was influenced by Jewish thought. The
literalism of this problem readily disappears if you understand, as Juan
tirelessly (OK, so he does get tired of pointing it out from time
to time) tries to tell us, that it is the meaning that is important,
not the literal details of the way that it is said.

And, the statements in the Faith about issues relating to science are
very interesting to us scientists, partly because we think science is
something we know about. I have tried many times to explain that
Abdu'l-Baha's use of the term *ether*, although inconsistent with our
understanding from 1920 to 1970, was consistent with most scientific
understanding until 1920, and is consistent with modern usage of the
term. (In the modern usage, the ether is the ever present background
of quantum fluctuations.) Statements about evolution by Abdu'l-Baha
have been consistently misconstrued by our humanists, who think them
merely a throwback to medieval scholastic Islamic thought. (Of
course, they are also consistently misconstrued by most of the rest
of the Baha'is, too.)
Here, I as a scientist am much less cavalier about the truth content
of Baha'u'llah's and Abdu'l-Baha's statements about scientific
questions than are my humanist friends, who, naively in my opinion,
tend to wish they hadn't been said.
> I think Baha'u'llah's contribution in religious thought,
> epistemologically and ethically, is analogous to the shift in
> science from a bound and closed universe to one which is open
> and infinite. I see Baha'u'llah saying the same thing with respect
> to views of *reality* , they are infinite and none will exhaust
> our understanding of *reality*.
Yes. Yes! 100% agreement.
> I do not find Baha'u'llah dictating any particular view of *reality*
> either as Prophet or by grant to an institution as capable of
> mediating that *reality*.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you explain?
A big part of the latest Talisman food fight has to do with whether
the institutions are to be trusted or not, as Jim Harrison and others
have correctly noted. The individualist position: that individuals
are free for themselves to decide the meaning of things that apply
to groups, is nonsensical. Equally nonsensical is the idea that
it can be decided by group opinion alone. Such a method means that
those who know best how to sway group opinion determine the decision.
That leaves group consultation carried out by duly appointed groups
as the remaining choice, which is the official Baha'i position.
I have been very disappointed in the low level, or avoidance actually,
of the discussion on Talisman about these seemingly elementary aspects
of how the truth of the matter at hand is to be determined.
> The Tablet of Wisdom has
> that remarkable passage about cosmology affirming both eternal creation and
> creation ex nihilo. Now that is my kind of Prophet. I see no reason why he
> could not be the "prophet "of choice :) to ever larger numbers of scientists
> , artists and thinkers in general . We just have to present Him as such .
Yes. I agree. Here, we are trying to work on the language of such a
presentation. Our humanist friends, generally speaking, are much
better at presenting ideas than are scientists, especially ideas that
are not specifically scientific (as are the teachings of the Baha'i
Faith.)
> A current counterpoint to this view would be Richard Rorty. Who I
> consider merely the latest in a long line. Rorty for instance, is in my view,
> simplistic and one dimensional.
Rorty? I am afraid I know nothing of him. Who is he, what does he
say, and whom does he influence?
Delighted by your posting and its contents,
Yours,
Stephen R. Friberg
Physics, Japan

From Geocitizen@aol.comMon Apr 8 15:24:15 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 04:43:49 -0400
From: Geocitizen@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Real Internal Consistency
After noting the cognitive dissonance arising from the fact that a Faith
proclaiming the equality of women and men cannot elect women to its highest
elected body, Steven Scholl wrote:
> . . . when such inconsistencies
>exist there will be a need to face it and deal with it. To run from it or
>hide it from the world or to wish it away is pathological and unhealthy.
This is true, of course, but hardly applies to what has occurred on Talisman.
No one here has tried to keep us silent on this ruling from the House of
Justice on the grounds that it is embarrassing for the world to know about
it, or sought to paint a picture of the world in which this ruling does not
exist.
The tactic of claiming that those who disagree with a certain agenda want to
"run from" this issue or "hide it from the world" may not be consciously
intended as a distortion, but certainly does nothing to advance the
discussion. One could as easily argue that it is running and hiding from the
issue to claim that Baha'u'llah never intended the exclusion of women from
UHJ membership, and that a future Universal House of Justice might vote to
allow the election of women as members.
(What would be the consequences if we buy a temporary escape from the
difficulties of this issue by claiming that "women will serve on the UHJ
someday" and then the House of Justice never does change its ruling? Perhaps
the solution that seems so elegant to Steven, Tony, Juan and others carries
dangers they have not considered. But this observation is not central to my
purpose at the moment.)
Perhaps there is a more powerful and liberating response to our cognitive
dissonance. Instead of hiding from this issue in an endless debate between
warring camps that outsiders must be forgiven for describing as
"fundamentalists vs. reformers" we could address the issue directly and
constructively in the real world.
Since we all agree that, for the time being, there is no changing the ruling
of the Universal House of Justice on this matter, it seems to me that the
only remaining defense the Baha'i community can muster against the accusation
that it is insincere in its beliefs on the station of women is to create in
itself a condition where such accusations will be patently absurd to any
unbiased observer.
That is, our only defense is to establish *in reality* as well as in
principle the undeniable equality of the sexes within the Baha'i community,
an equality that women and men everywhere, whether Baha'i or not, will
recognize as more meaningful than anything any other society has accomplished
on this front.
If we can render literally true 'Abdu'l-Baha's statement that service on the
Universal House of Justice is the only area where women are not fully equal
participants, this demonstration of internal consistency would release far
greater power than anything we could expect from a changed ruling and the
election of one or more women to the UHJ.
Of course, such a high degree of internal consistency will be difficult to
attain, much more difficult than arguing for the viability of a changed
ruling on this issue. We will have to develop patterns of community and
family life from the Writings, some of which will be completely new, rather
than adopting the social and political patterns familiar from our respective
cultures and histories, as we have been doing in our discussions of this
issue on Talisman.
To achieve this we will have to draw on the power released by the dynamic
tension between our cognitive dissonance and our faith in the truth of
Baha'u'llah's Message.
But if and when we reach real internal consistency on this principle, or if
our efforts toward it reinvigorate our communities and uplift the well-being
of humanity, then instead of wishing away this issue, we might be grateful
that Baha'u'llah gave to our community such a strengthening test.
Hopeful regards,
Kevin Haines

From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpMon Apr 8 15:24:30 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 18:56:37 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: Bruce Burrill
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Bhagavad Gita
Dear Bruce, Bill, Richard, and all:
It is really delightful to see discussions of Hinduism on Talisman.
Thanks for the very interesting points of view.
Yours, Stephen R. Friberg
From jwinters@epas.utoronto.caMon Apr 8 15:25:57 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 06:09:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonah Winters
To: talisman
Subject: Talisman breaking the Covenant
Juan, thank you for responding so calmly to a recent letter which stated, in
part, "I do believe that the Covenant is being undermined and challenged
continuously by a subgroup within Talisman." The rest is too contrary to
the wonder of Baha'u'llah's beauty for me to repeat.
I admire your equanimity in the face of such intellectual fascism. I am
too shaken at the moment to respond coherently. Random House Dictionary,
s.v. "fascism": "suppression of the opposition through terror and
censorship..." Thank God that we are part of a Faith that encourages
questioning. Thank God we have institutions designed with safeguards
preventing social and mental totalitarianism, designed to uphold the vital
freedom of the heart to understand its faith. Thank God we have scholars
who are helping us to comprehend our religion through the eyes of reason
which helps us to understand our hearts of devotion. Thank God those who
believe that reason will lead to the destruction of love can never implement
their ignorance.
-Jonah
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jonah and Kari Winters
33 Endean Avenue / Toronto, Ontario / M4M-1W5 / (416) 461-3527

From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpMon Apr 8 15:27:51 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 20:11:18 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: talisman@indiana.edu, friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp
Subject: Friends, please no accusations
Dear Friends:
Juan recently made a persuasive argument for ending our bickering. The
Covenant, he said, rightly in my opinion, is a marvelous protection for
all of us.
Please, please, please! Now is not the time to make last minute accusations
against those you think guilty of excess. If you have just been accused
in such a way, please swallow your pride and don't reply in kind.
Imagine Abdu'l Baha watching over our Talisman discussion group,
anxious that we channel our considerable acumen towards addressing
the challenges of understanding the relationship of His Father's
Teachings to the world's travails.
Think that if you reply in kind, how disappointed He will be.
Why did Baha'u'llah create this discussion group for us?
Certainly not for flames!
Yours, S. Friberg

From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduMon Apr 8 15:28:47 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 08:44:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: DEREK COCKSHUT
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Response to re. Right of God.
On Sun, 7 Apr 1996, DEREK COCKSHUT wrote:
> English believer. Although payments were made by western Baha’is during
> the ministry of the Master it is not correct to describe those has
> ‘full’ payments of the Right of God. If the western Baha’is especially
> the ones in the USA many of whom very wealthy had paid the Right of God
> then the financal position of the Faith would have radically changed.
> The fact that you correctly point out monies were collected for
> humanitarian projects and accepted for such shows that such offerings
> were not the Right of God which is offered without earmarking.
My source for the comment was 'Abdu'l-Baha's correspondence with Roy
Wilhelm. One of those tablets, translated by Shoghi Effendi, refers to
the money collected as "Hukook" and gives directions to send it to the
usual bank. I was not sufficiently clear, it is 'Abdu'l-Baha who says
what the money is going to be used for.
Jackson

From Alethinos@aol.comMon Apr 8 15:29:02 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 09:49:51 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Talisman breaking the Covenant
In a message dated 96-04-08 06:10:16 EDT, J Winters writes:
>I admire your equanimity in the face of such intellectual fascism.
We're not going here again are we?
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com

From jwalbrid@indiana.eduMon Apr 8 15:29:16 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 08:55:10 -0500 (EST)
From: jwalbrid
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Deportment
I apologize for not intervening sooner, but I have been busy with other
urgent matters.
The honored members are reminded that ad hominem arguments are
inappropriate. For Baha'is this particularly means refraining from
accusations of covenant-breaking, "undermining" the covenant, etc.
John Walbridge
List Owner

From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduMon Apr 8 15:29:53 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 08:58:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: DEREK COCKSHUT
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: letters
On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, DEREK COCKSHUT wrote:
> My dear Jackson
> I fail to see the relevance of your point that the Guardian was not
> aware of a particular tablet. HE obviously therefore chose to devolve
The point, my dear Derek, is that the position has many times been
offered on this list that the "infallibility" of the Guardian means that
any statement in a letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi must be "true."
That position is not testable in relation to such matters of opinion on
the interpretation of evidence as Christian theology and ancient history,
however it is testable in relation to positive statements about the
writings. If statements in letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi are not
necessarily reliable in relation to objectively determinable aspects of
the writings, then how can it logically be argued that the mere fact of
the existence of a statement in relation to something else makes it both
"true" and binding (which has been frequently done here)? Whatever
"infallibility" means, it clearly does not mean the impossibility of
errors of fact in letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi.
Jackson

From Alethinos@aol.comMon Apr 8 15:30:32 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 10:32:13 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Goosestepping down main st.
I wonder if Arsalan is feeling that he is now a victim of *intellectual
fascism* because he expressed his concerns - strongly no doubt - about the
Covenant? And now of course his post is being cesured. Ms. Winters will you
have the moral and ethical strength to come to his defense though you
disagree with his stand?
Maybe we should talk about the Bill of Rights and the Baha'i Faith again.
That is less hot an issue. How about it Juan, you've done some work in this
area. Anyone else? Brent? Kevin? Terry? Steve? Burl? Linda? Lora? Derek? Et
Al?
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com

From derekmc@ix.netcom.comMon Apr 8 15:31:01 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 08:12:30 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: letters
On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, DEREK COCKSHUT wrote:
> My dear Jackson
> I fail to see the relevance of your point that the Guardian was not
> aware of a particular tablet. HE obviously therefore chose to
devolve
The point, my dear Derek, is that the position has many times been
offered on this list that the "infallibility" of the Guardian means
that
any statement in a letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi must be "true."
That position is not testable in relation to such matters of opinion on
the interpretation of evidence as Christian theology and ancient
history,
however it is testable in relation to positive statements about the
writings. If statements in letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi are not
necessarily reliable in relation to objectively determinable aspects of
the writings, then how can it logically be argued that the mere fact of
the existence of a statement in relation to something else makes it
both
"true" and binding (which has been frequently done here)? Whatever
"infallibility" means, it clearly does not mean the impossibility of
errors of fact in letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi.
Jackson
My dear Jackson
I do not believe I have ever or would augue the point that every word
that is indirectly attributed to Shoghi Effendi is true in a theology
sense. The reality is; it is not for the likes of you or I to decide
which of the multitude of statements that come from the Guardian have a
'permanent' status or a 'temporay' status that responsibilty lies with
the House of Justice. Your point over the tablet showed clearly that
the Guardian understood where His authority is and the Universal House
of Justice's authority, that is something we all should learn from.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut

From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduMon Apr 8 15:46:56 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:17:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Donald Zhang Osborn
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Huston Smith & the Baha'i Faith
Allah'u'Abha! Thanks to all for info, insights, and opinions about Huston
Smith, his work, and relations with the Baha'i Faith. I may have been too
harsh in my initial reactions to Dr. Smith's treatment of the Faith, yet one
impression remains. His only published mention of the Faith (or are there
others??) is the rather backhanded one which began this discussion.
Regardless of how one evaluates the accuracy of that statement, and in full
awareness that Dr. Smith may have chosen book to focus on the five religions
with the most followers in his world religions book, it still seems a
curious way to treat the Baha'i Faith.
I am admittedly no scholar of religions nor an expert on publications about
religions. However, from occasional browsing of books on "world religions,"
I have some impression of the range of treatments of the Baha'i Faith. Some
are hostile, some are more or less respectful (although the Faith may not
receive as long a chapter as the larger and older world religions, or may be
lumped in a chapter dealing with newer or smaller religions), and some for
one reason or another overlook the Faith entirely. For the last category
one is left to speculate why. In the case of Dr. Smith's book, there was
just this one remark (and that only in the edition without the pictures)
without any background reporting a less than favorable impression. Several
members of this list have helped to provide a broader context to understand
Dr. Smith's (probably, hopefully) evolving views on the Faith.
Hopefully there will be opportunities for Baha'is to build relations with Dr.
Smith, who has certainly done a great service to the advancement of the
principle of oneness of religion taught by Baha'u'llah. Indeed, if Sheila
and the ABS are able to invite him to an upcoming conference, that would be
ideal.
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu

From derekmc@ix.netcom.comMon Apr 8 15:47:30 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 08:20:51 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: Response to re. Right of God.
On Sun, 7 Apr 1996, DEREK COCKSHUT wrote:
> English believer. Although payments were made by western Baha=92is
during=
=20
> the ministry of the Master it is not correct to describe those has=20
> =91full=92 payments of the Right of God. If the western Baha=92is
especia=
lly=20
> the ones in the USA many of whom very wealthy had paid the Right of
God=
=20
> then the financal position of the Faith would have radically
changed.=20
> The fact that you correctly point out monies were collected for=20
> humanitarian projects and accepted for such shows that such
offerings=20
> were not the Right of God which is offered without earmarking.=20
My source for the comment was 'Abdu'l-Baha's correspondence with Roy=20
Wilhelm. One of those tablets, translated by Shoghi Effendi, refers
to=20
the money collected as "Hukook" and gives directions to send it to
the=20
usual bank. I was not sufficiently clear, it is 'Abdu'l-Baha who
says=20
what the money is going to be used for.
Jackson
My dear Jackson.
I am aware that certain Western believers during the time of the Master
did try to follow the instruction on the Right of God. But it is really
to correct to considor that it was not something that was followed in
respect of a law by the community as a whole. After all I seem to
recall they had enough of a problem with serving wine at meals. The
Right of God only after 1993 became a standard feature of Baha'i
community life world-wide.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut

From nineteen@onramp.netMon Apr 8 15:52:59 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 10:54:05 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Juan Cole
Subject: Re: covenant accusations
> The list rules specifically prohibit accusations of
>heresy, which is what, in Baha'i terms, charges that the Covenant is
>being undermined amount to. This list rule is necessary because Baha'is
>are particularly immature and prone to making such charges.
What are these accusations you are talking about? Did I miss something?
Richard

From 72110.2126@compuserve.comMon Apr 8 15:53:57 1996
Date: 08 Apr 96 14:47:52 EDT
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Defamation
Dear Talismanians and Dear Arsalan,
First I wanted to thank Juan for his cogent and delightfully dispassionate
post on accusations of breaking/undermining the Covenant. His detachment
and deportment truly remind me of the stories of 'Abdu'l-Baha, who
attempted at any cost to love his enemies and be fair-minded even in the
face of attacks.
Second, I would say to Arsalan, in answer to his question about what to
do when he believes that there is a subgroup of people on Talisman who
are actively attempting to undermine the Covenant, that this is a very
serious charge, not lightly bantered about. Making such a charge would
be akin to, say, stating that a specific group of individuals had plotted
to overthrow the government, and repeating that charge in a public forum.
Such a charge, if untrue, would expose the person who made it to legitimate
claims of slander, character assassination and defamation of character.
The correct procedure for any Baha'i who believes that such a heinous
crime might be taking place would be to report it to those responsible
for preventing such things, such as the Auxiliary Board for Protection.
Barring that, the Universal House of Justice would, of course, be the
court of last resort.
As with any charge, minor or major, which a Baha'i lodges against fellow
believers, once said charge has been officially lodged, the writings
counsel all Baha'is to observe silence about them, since any unsupported
charges made publicly without action by a responsible body would constitute
backbiting.
Abiding by these simple and straightforward rules of Baha'i conduct would
protect all of us, accusers and accused, from threatening the unity of the
Faith and harming others.
Love,
David

From 72110.2126@compuserve.comMon Apr 8 15:55:48 1996
Date: 08 Apr 96 14:50:31 EDT
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Teaching Today
Dear Talismanians and Dear Don,
Got your post, which I think you posted to all and sundry as well,
responding to mine about my friend Tom. Bear with me while I
reprise yours, as I think you make some important points I'll
attempt to respond to:
> David -
I think your friend makes some good points, and I wouldn't be
surprised if your post generates considerable discussion. The
problem I see is that the exact same thing is going on here on
talisman. How many people on here have had a *personal*
fireside in the last 19 days? Heck, how many have even
*mentioned* the Faith to an acquaintance face-to-face in the
last 19 days? I'm willing to bet that most subscribers are so
involved in the 'scholarly' discussions going on here that
they don't have time, or don't get around to, doing any
sustained personal teaching. I don't see the discussions here
as being any more important to the progress of the Faith than
the argument you cite over the arrangement of the chairs at a
meeting. Until the Baha'is have sufficient faith in the
future of the Faith and make it an integral part of their
lives, resulting in thir spontaneous sharing of it on a
regular basis there will be no change. In other words I see
it as a spiritual problem resulting from our attachment to
'all things save God'.
Don C <
So -- where to start? How about this:
I can't speak for others here on Talisman, but I've been struggling
with the questions you ask for some time now. Personally, I teach
the Faith just as much, on a quantity level, as I always have, what
with writing, speaking and having firesides. Rarely a day goes by
when I don't at least mention the Faith and its teachings to at
least one person. I've been a Baha'i so long that this habit is
ingrained in me quite deeply, and to lose what you rightly call the
"spontaneous sharing" of it would seem a violation of my very
being.
But I find that the quality of my teaching has declined over the
past few years, sadly. That is not something I wished to have
happen, and indeed I have struggled against it, but it has happened
nevertheless. Many of the other people I know, some who also
participate in Talisman and many who do not, have confided to me
that they feel the same way, too.
Why? Because I have seen the results of my teaching go sour so
often lately. I have lost some of my earlier spirit for teaching
the Faith enthusiastically, because the community has received and
then cast out the seekers I carefully tried to nurture. So I
certainly haven't quit teaching, which as we both know cuts off
heavenly assistance from the Concourse on High, but instead have
become a little more reserved and cautious.
Here's how it generally works -- my wife and I teach and nurture a
soul, get excited with them when they discover the truths in the
Writings, expend much energy and love in their nurturance, bring
them to the point of accepting the Revelation and then take them to
their first feast. We try to prepare them for the reality of
dealing with the Baha'i community and its problems, goodness knows.
But at that point, they often are so turned off, so struck by the
dissonance between the teachings and the practice, that they decide
to take a giant step back and not participate. This has happened
repeatedly, with several *dozen* seekers, in different communities,
over the past five years. Gets a little disheartening, no? Have
you had the same experience?
I'm willing to entertain the idea that such a result is my own
fault, but the pattern has repeated itself so often of late that I
truly have begun to think of it as a universal one. So many of my
close Baha'i friends, both those who participate here on Talisman
and those who think the Internet is something you fish with, have
all remarked upon it and lamented it as fact. My friend Tom nailed
it, I thought, when he said that we have, as a community, turned so
inward that we have become almost actively hostile to a large
influx of new believers.
I suspect that this is the real reason why we have failed so
miserably in the US vis-a-vis the 3-year plan goal of a massive
increase in the number of believers. It's not, I don't think,
because a small group of 200 or so folks on Talisman would rather
gripe than teach -- instead, we see it nationwide, in all strata of
Baha'i society. For the past decade, indeed for the past two
decades, we have struggled along in the United States with
approximately two thousand declarations a year, barely enough to
replace those who die, move, pioneer, have their rights removed and
withdraw.
So if we continue in this dismal pattern, what can fix it? I think
I've come to the conclusion lately that we need to focus first on
the quality of our community life, and thus make declaration and
the subsequent association with the Baha'i community a cause of joy
again.
Many of my seekers just don't find that available to them when they
come into the community. One of the people I work with wants very
much to declare, and believes in Baha'u'llah from the bottom of her
very pure heart, but is now a member of an A.M.E. church that
really provides her with an enormous level of spirit (I love to go
to their gospel services myself, so I can see what she would miss)
and community harmony. It's tough to go from that to a feast that
feels like a funeral.
So I have to say that I must gently disagree with you that the
discussions here aren't important -- I've personally found what I
think will prove to be an extremely important example for our
future community development here on Talisman, and that is the
Omaha model. The believers in Omaha focus on providing their
community members with two things we all desperately need: a sense
of the mystical, and a way to express it in the context of Baha'i
worship. I really love Terry Culhane's admonition that nobody
joins a religion to be on a committee. If we could begin
practicing such a House of Worship-centered approach, perhaps our
teaching would bear more fruit.
I know that some of the bantering that goes on here at the Talisman
corral sometimes does seem like re-arranging the deck chairs at
feast or on the Titanic, (I have one word for those who keep
shouting -- decaf) but amongst the verbal volume there have emerged
some quietly-whispered and intensely beautiful diadems of wisdom
and insight.
Love,
David

From asadighi@ptialaska.netMon Apr 8 15:56:21 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 08:47:16 -0800
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: covenant accusations
Friends,
Hit a nerve, heh?
I stand by what I said. If that is not acceptable to the honoured
list-owner, I will be more than glad to resign from the list. But, please,
do not attempt to silence a voice that does not agree with you agendas. As
far as I can see, none of the rules of the list have been adhered to for a
very long time. Originally I posted several messages expressing my opinion
about the resent controversies. I was immediately attacked because I was
injecting poison etc. When I used a quote from the House of Justice--I think
the House has still something to do the Faith--to show why I had said what I
had, I was accused of wrapping myself up in quotes and that my statements
were shameful. I didn't see any real outcry that the rules were broken. So,
please spare me the whining about the list rules being broken.
As long as I have not been silenced by the list owner I will continue
express what my conscience dictates. I realize that my opinions are viewed
as old-fashioned, fascistic, dangerous, not politically correct within
Talisman, but I am afraid I am unable and unwilling to change them because
some on Talisman do not like them.
Arsalan
P.S. Sitting on the fence for so long was causing me severe pain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes

From nineteen@onramp.netMon Apr 8 15:57:04 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 12:24:38 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: TLCULHANE@aol.com
Cc: Talisman
Subject: Re: notes on Faith and Modern...
> A couple of quick points in response to yourthoughtful post. I will be
>commenting more on al this over the next few weeks as i organize my notes .
Dear Terry,
I see what you are saying, and I do not believe anyone wants to return to
a time of ignorant fanaticism--but the vision I am describing is the
revolution of the behavioral model for humanity--not identifying the
intellectual role of the institutions or defining their "sacramental"
significance in terms of a global society. Personally I don't attempt
to interpret the Faith in terms of my Catholic experience. And I don't
see things as a matter of "this time" things are gonna be alright like
the litany of a hopeless drunk who keeps saying "things will be different
now". Trusting in the Lord is not shameful or anti-intellectual. It IS
a state of grace we aspire to. The kingdom of God on earth that we
prayed for as Catholics inumerable times when we said the "Our Father" is
here. The unfoldment of that Kingdom IS UNKNOWN as of yet as the
Guardian Himself pointed out. It seems to me I hear deep discouragement
in your statement--it is a dark and troubling time my brother, but there
is amply reason to see the institutions as divinely ordained, without
seeing them as the expression of a "Deus Ex Machina" hocus pocus
spiritual structure. This world we live in, as you rightly pointed out,
is a sign of God. What I see for us as humans is truely becoming AWARE
(Universal Higher Consciousness) of our attendance at the court of God on
earth. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
Baha'u'llah tells us to effect change in others by adorning ourselves
with the robe of His names. The friends may feel that is too hard,
unheard of, pious rhetoric, UNREALISTIC. Yet, Baha'u'llah and the
Master assert that the manner in which we will conduct ourselves as we
mature in this unfolding time of peace and understanding will be quite
different in tenor from what it is now. It was either the Master or
Baha'u'llah who gives the example of a rich man in that time not being
able to tolerate the thought of a poor person suffering from deprivation.
I'm not sure what it is that you are sceptical about. I don't think
BAHA"IS will be different. I think PEOPLE in general will be different,
or at least they will be trying much harder and will take the ONENESS of
humanity much more seriously. Juan pointed out in his post on the
importance of being a Baha'i that 1% percent makes a big difference. 5%
in my opinion could fill the world with light and I only mean 5% of the
membership. I believe to a predetermined and organic degree the human
capacity to love will manifest itself in the same way the average human
matures in his personal life from absolute self-centeredness as an infant
to the sacrificial attitude that one developes after starting a family.
The raising of consciousness that we are all members of ONE FAMILY is
critical to engaging this capacity in each of us and UNIVERSALIZING it.
All the peices are in place, it is to the leavening of consciousness
that Baha'is have been called-- not only Baha'is, but the spinnoff of
that awareness where those who are not members TEACH THE MESSAGE and
everyone plays a part. BTW Marlon Brando was talking the other night on
Larry King about the significance of living in ONE WORLD. The world is
moving this way as an organic imperative, we know about this in
detail--have accepted it and are called to promote it. That is the
importance of being a Baha'i--it is also the burden--to be mature before
it will be normal for everyone else. This structural change in
behavior--a higher understanding of humanness-- is the paramount theme
IMHO of Baha'u'llah's message.
Richard

From sscholl@jeffnet.orgMon Apr 8 15:58:43 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 22:48:50 +0100
From: White Cloud Press
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Yahoo to the Rescue
Brother Harrison has thrown down the gauntlet, drawn the line in the sand,
and I feel I must take up the challenge to-------------pardon
me---------------one second-------------almost---------okay, I'm back, just
had to pick those fleas out of my beard and do a little itching on my
backside, if you know what I mean. Now I am ready to dig into some serious
revisionist work.
Dear Jim,
The quote you have posted twice in the last 48 hours from Shoghi Effendi
seems to me to mean the following.
1. The Baha'i Faith is a religion and not a secular government.
2. It incorporates democratic elements into its administrative order but it
is not a pure democracy.
3. The elected members of the Universal House of Justice are not required
to abide by the will of the majority of their constituents.
4. The members of the House of Justice must, however, acquaint themeselves
with the conditions prevailing among the believers.
5. Which implies that there must be adequate means for freedom of
expression and the widest possible dissemination of information within the
community.
6. The House of Justice, in the end, makes its decisions based on its
individual members' prayerful reflection on the issue within the context of
their understanding of the sacred texts and the writings of Shoghi Effendi.
So, Jim, what is the problemo? It seems to me that some on Talisman focus
on the "not responsible to those whom they represent" part of the equation,
while others put more weight on "they must acquaint themselves with the
prevailing conditions" and views within the community part of the equation.
What many of us have been saying is that the two are inseparable parts of
the process. Our discussions on service of women on Baha'i institutions, it
seems to me, is legitimate and being done within the parameters of the
Baha'i system. No one has said the House is in error for not moving on the
matter, in fact, many of us have said that it is probably a good thing that
the House refuses to address the issue any further than they have since the
historical and textual issues remain in need of further study. Thus my
suggestion that a fact-finding ad hoc body be brought into existence under
the direction of the House of Justice to spend the time necessary to
examine in detail the history and texts related to women and service.
Hope this helps.
I remain your devoted servant,
Yahoo Scholl

From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduMon Apr 8 15:59:16 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:32:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: DEREK COCKSHUT
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: letters

On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, DEREK COCKSHUT wrote:
> I do not believe I have ever or would augue the point that every word
> that is indirectly attributed to Shoghi Effendi is true in a theology
> sense.
Maybe you would not; some on this list and in regular Baha'i interaction
quite definitely do.
The reality is; it is not for the likes of you or I to decide
> which of the multitude of statements that come from the Guardian have a
> 'permanent' status or a 'temporay' status that responsibilty lies with
> the House of Justice. Your point over the tablet showed clearly that
> the Guardian understood where His authority is and the Universal House
> of Justice's authority, that is something we all should learn from.
The issue of 'permanent' or 'temporary' was not raised by my posting.
The letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi an excerpt from which I posted did
not address any abstract issue of the line between the authority of the
Guardian and that of the House, that is the point, it addressed a very
specific issue and on the premise of there being nothing in the
teachings on a specific subject
suggested that the future House might rule on it. But there _is_
something in the teachings on the specific subject, therefore
invalidating the premise of the statement.
Jackson

From asadighi@ptialaska.netMon Apr 8 16:21:33 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 12:14:54 -0800
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Defamation
Dear Mr. Langness,
Thank you for a quite a reasonable response. The problem is precisely that
the authority and the legitimacy of the House has been challenged within
Talisman over and over again.
The Universal House of Justice states, "if any participant in an email
discussion feels that a view put forward appears to contradict or undermine
the provisions of the Covenant, he should be free to say so, explaining
candidly and courteously why he feels
as he does. The person who made the initial statement will then be able to
reevaluate his opinion and, if he still believes it to be valid, he should
be able to explain why it is not contrary to either the letter or the spirit
of the Covenant. The participants in such a discussion should avoid
disputation and, if they are unable to resolve an issue, they should refer
the point to the Universal House of Justice since, in accordance with the
Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Baha, "By this body all the difficult problems
are to be resolved..." and it has the authority to decide upon "all problems
which have caused difference, questions that are obscure, and matters that
are not expressly recorded in the Book." In this way the Covenant can
illuminate and temper the
discourse and make it fruitful."
I believe my statements are within the parameters set by the House. I stand
by what I said. I realize it is a very serious accusation, and believe me I
did not make it lightly, but after many months of viewing the exchanges
taking place, and prayerful consideration that I felt it was time for me to
clearly state what my conscience dictated.
Obviously there are issues that we will never agree on. The stands that
several parties have taken are quite rigid. I do suggest that at least we
unite in one issue and refer this subject, this being whether what has been
taking place on Talisman can indeed be considered a challenge to the
Covenant or not, to the House of Justice as it is obvious that disunity is
the norm within this discussion group. The list owner and those who are so
enraged because I saw fit to express my opinion may be able to silence me,
but I am afraid the problems will continue and will be a source of
contention for the foreseeable future.
I do long for unity and peace. It is with this desire in mind that I urge
that we, as members of this discussion group and as one entity, appeal to
the Universal House of Justice so these differences can be resolved and that
we may be able to enjoy some degree of brotherly love once again.
Loving Baha'i greetings,
Arsalan

>Dear Talismanians and Dear Arsalan,
>
>First I wanted to thank Juan for his cogent and delightfully dispassionate
>post on accusations of breaking/undermining the Covenant. His detachment
>and deportment truly remind me of the stories of 'Abdu'l-Baha, who
>attempted at any cost to love his enemies and be fair-minded even in the
>face of attacks.
>
>Second, I would say to Arsalan, in answer to his question about what to
>do when he believes that there is a subgroup of people on Talisman who
>are actively attempting to undermine the Covenant, that this is a very
>serious charge, not lightly bantered about. Making such a charge would
>be akin to, say, stating that a specific group of individuals had plotted
>to overthrow the government, and repeating that charge in a public forum.
>Such a charge, if untrue, would expose the person who made it to legitimate
>claims of slander, character assassination and defamation of character.
>
>The correct procedure for any Baha'i who believes that such a heinous
>crime might be taking place would be to report it to those responsible
>for preventing such things, such as the Auxiliary Board for Protection.
>Barring that, the Universal House of Justice would, of course, be the
>court of last resort.
>
>As with any charge, minor or major, which a Baha'i lodges against fellow
>believers, once said charge has been officially lodged, the writings
>counsel all Baha'is to observe silence about them, since any unsupported
>charges made publicly without action by a responsible body would constitute
>backbiting.
>
>Abiding by these simple and straightforward rules of Baha'i conduct would
>protect all of us, accusers and accused, from threatening the unity of the
>Faith and harming others.
>
>Love,
>
>David
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes

From richs@microsoft.comMon Apr 8 16:22:58 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 13:12:55 -0700
From: Rick Schaut
To: "''"
Subject: Guardian's Letters & the 1902 Tablet
Dearest Talizens,
I'm going to try to respond to a number of points on these issues,
including Sen's response to one of my messages and to Jackson
Armstrong's remarks about errors in Shoghi Effendi's letters.
First, as to the points that Sen raises, I don't think Shoghi Effendi's
remark that the Guardian cannot independantly determine the
constitution of the Universal House of Justice means that the Universal
House of Justice is free to desregard the Guardian's authoritative
interpretations any more than it would give the Universal House of
Justice leave to disregard the Kitab-i-Aqdas when formulating its own
constitution. The fact that the interpretation may cover a provision
that would appropriately be contained in that constitution is only
secondary to the very clear command that Shoghi Effendi's
interpretations are binding.
Secondly, if declaring someone, or even entire classes of individuals,
ineligible for service on an institution constitutes an undue
restriction on the conscientious choice of those who vote in Baha'i
elections, then we would be bound to accept someone who's
administrative privileges have been removed as a member of an
institution if one were elected to such an institutions.
Now, for Jackson Armonstrong's remarks, I must admit to a bit of
confusion. I do not recall anyone saying, in recent weeks, that every
statement made by Shoghi Effendi is infallible, so I wonder why Jackson
feels it necessary to show that this position is wrong. Straw critters
may be easy to hunt and kill, but the real thing is much more
difficult.
On the other hand, I can't help feel as though Jackson has misread some
of my remarks. I have stated two distinct propositions with which he
appears to agree, and reached a third conclusion which is quite
different from the one against which he has argued. We all seem to
agree that:
1) Messages written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi are regarded as part of
the corpus of Shoghi Effendi's writings; and
2) Shoghi Effendi was infallible where he has exercised his
authoritative right to interpret the Writings.
My conclusion is:
3) Messages written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi and which consist of
stating an interpretation of the Writings are as infallible as if
Shoghi Effendi himself had written the messages.
Note the qualification "and which consist of stating an interpretation
of the Writings". This, certainly, does not cover all of Shoghi
Effendi's writings, and I readily agree that Shoghi Effendi was not
infallible in matters where he was not offering an interpretation.
This includes matters where he declined to offer an interpretation
thinking it was not covered in the Texts even though the matter was.
If Shoghi Effendi declines to make a statement on a matter, then he is
not interpreting, and, therefore, is not operating within his area of
infallibility. That seems a rather simple concept to me.
Lastly, regarding the 1902 Tablet, I must assent to Richard Hollinger's
remarks. Moreover, I believe Shoghi Effendi's understanding of that
Tablet concurs--`Abdu'l-Baha's position never changed despite the fact
that the members of the community believed otherwise. I think Shoghi
Effendi thought this so clear as to not require a formal
interpretation.
However, I think we can have this only one of two ways. Either
`Abdu'l-Baha's intent is consistent and clear, in which case Shoghi
Effendi's remarks are merely a restatement of `Abdu'l-Baha's
interpretation, or `Abdu'l-Baha's remarks are not clear, in which case
Shoghi Effendi's understanding of this issue does constitute an
interpretation even if Shoghi Effendi might not have thought of it as
so. In it's letter of May 31, 1988, the Universal House of Justice
appears to walk this fence by referring to Shoghi Effendi's remarks as
"elucidation", which is either interpretation or it isn't depending
upon the clarity of the original remarks.
In either case, the matter, as the Universal House of Justice clearly
states
[Part 2, Application/MS-TNEF 4.4KB]
[Unable to print this part]

From L Mon Apr 8 16:23:28 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 22:10:01 +0200 (MET DST)
From: L
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: covenant accusations
Dear Prof. Cole,
I agree with you that the flame war should stop. In fact, it is regrettable
that it ever began. In fact, since I subscribed to Talisman, it seems that
there have been several flame wars, which I personally find very unpleasant.
But, I do not think your analogy is a good one.
The Covenant is not
>univocal, the Voice of God speaking imperiously to wretched humans; it is
>dialogical, a mutual pledge by the divine and the human to one another, a
>metaphysical marriage. None of us has the same style of interaction in
>our human marriages, spouse to spouse. Yet none of us would dream of
>intervening in another's marriage, to tell him or her how to relate to
>his or her spouse. Why, then, should a mere individual take it upon
>himself to intervene in others' Covenant with God?
I have no hesitation whatsoever in intervening as strongly as I possibly can
in marriages where a husband is abusing his spouse. I have done so in the
past and will do so in the future, regardless of the personal cost. Once a
contract was taken out on my life because I helped a woman escape from her
"live-in significant other" who was threatening her life. She actually had
to leave the country. Perhaps some people feel the same way about the
Covenant as I do about this issue?
Sincerely,
(Dr.) L

From derekmc@ix.netcom.comMon Apr 8 17:10:52 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 09:05:59 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE. Covenant Accusations
My dear Juan
As most of the postings today seem to be attacking Arsalan, apparently
for suggesting that the Covenant has been attacked.I might point out
that whilst a certain person was attacking all and sundery including
myself.There was total silence for restraint from the very people who
are complaining this morning and wanting perfect unity.
A few days ago Arsalan posted this and was complete ignored could it be
the subject he so tactfully suggested was not not exciting enough?
It would appear from his post on April 3rd he wanted unity on the very
subject Juan you are saying is not fragile .I couild not agree more the
Covenant is far from fragile, we mere mortals are the fragile ones.
Could it be that Arasalan’s found his only course of action in wishing
for discussion on the matter of the Covenant was to suggest it was
being undermined because nobody wanted to study it.That would be a fair
comment and in keeping with an ‘academic’ list. You teach history if
one of your students told you they intended to study mating cry of the
hooked bill raven to understand the ramifications the French Revolution
after you had outlined the general course of study on that subject,
your comments could be unprintable.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
PS a personal note
How is everything at home with the family is all well ?

From: asadighi@ptialaska.net (Arsalan J. Sadighi)
Subject: Deepening Needed!
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 10:23:07 -0900
Dear Friends,
Recently we have seen some very heated discussions on some very
emotionally
charged issues. Unfortunately, it appears to me that instead of moving
towards finding a resolution to these problems the whole atmosphere is
now
filled with contention and strife. Contention and strife have been
emphatically forbidden both in the Book of His Covenant and in the Will
and
Testament of Abdu'l-Baha. I do take this very seriously. I find this
very
dangerous ground to thread.
I would like to humbly suggest that we deepen ourselves on the message
of
the House of Justice sent to an individual believer on Email Discussion
Groups. It is a message that requires very serious and dedicated study
as it
directly pertains to issues confronting us on this group. It is a
message
that if carefully studied has the potential of guiding us and make
unity a
distinct possibility amongst us.
After we have carefully deepened on the subject, if our problems
continue,
then we can proceed to behead each other at the plains of Karbila.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Arsalan J. Sadighi
.......................................................................
.Juan's Posting
I think it is worthwhile recalling that Talisman is not an official
Baha'i list; it is a research project run by an academic at a state
university that is governed by the principle of the separation of
religion and state. The list rules specifically prohibit accusations
of heresy, which is what, in Baha'i terms, charges that the Covenant is
being undermined amount to. This list rule is necessary because
Baha'is are particularly immature and prone to making such charges.
This Talisman rule has been broken a number of times, and I am
beginning to feel that the list-owner has been unduly tolerant of such
outbursts, which have the effect of encouraging further outbursts and
emboldening authoritarian and intolerant statements.
On Talisman, a poor argument is to be countered by a better argument;
faulty reasoning by clear logic; poor textual evidence by better
documentation. If the Baha'i covenant is so frail a thing that it can
be "undermined" by mere rational investigation, then it is not worth
much to begin with; if it is so tenuous that it can only be upheld by
anathemas, fatwas, and implicit threats, then it is anyway doomed. The
Covenant is, of course, actually not frail and not tenuous, and no
hysteria about it is called for.
The Covenant should be regarded as a thing of beauty, attractive in its
radiance, integral, authoritative, combining in its features the fiery
zeal of the Bab, the august sovereignty of Baha'u'llah, the dynamic
loving-kindness of `Abdu'l-Baha, the majestic vision of Shoghi Effendi,
and the dispassionate equity of the Universal House of Justice.
The Covenant is not a mace, with which one can beat fellow-believers
with whom one disagrees. The Covenant is not a totalitarian imperative
whereby one can control and silence individuals. The Covenant is not
univocal, the Voice of God speaking imperiously to wretched humans; it
is dialogical, a mutual pledge by the divine and the human to one another,
a metaphysical marriage. None of us has the same style of interaction in
our human marriages, spouse to spouse. Yet none of us would dream of
intervening in another's marriage, to tell him or her how to relate to
his or her spouse. Why, then, should a mere individual take it upon
himself to intervene in others' Covenant with God?
May we please have some serious study, now, and stop the flaming?
Subscribing to Talisman also involves a covenant, a pledge by all of us
to all of us to use our reasons and to trust in each other's good
faith. *That* Covenant has certainly been undermined.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan

From richs@microsoft.comMon Apr 8 17:17:58 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 14:10:16 -0700
From: Rick Schaut
To: "'talisman@indiana.edu'"
Subject: RE: covenant accusations
Dearest Talizens,
In a message with which I agree completely, Juan writes:
>From: Juan R Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu]
>>On Talisman, a poor argument is to be countered by a better argument;
>>faulty reasoning by clear logic; poor textual evidence by better
>>documentation.
And, on Talisman, sincere and heartfelt statements of concern are
treated as accusations.
>>The Covenant is,
>>of course, actually not frail and not tenuous, and no hysteria about it
>>is called for.
>
Absolutely correct.
However, it would be duplicitous to claim that this hysteria is
one-sided. Talk of legal issues regarding defamation of character and
labelling someone's remarks as "fascism" are hysterical when we realize
that the remarks which have brought about such condemnations have no
more authority than anyone else's remarks. How can Arsalan's remarks be
regarded as threatening when we all agree, even Arsalan himself, that
Arsalan has no authority in this Faith!? Hysteria, indeed!
Arsalan's remarks may have violated list rules, though I am of the
opinion that that they don't because he did not name any specific
individual. But I believe his remarks to be no more hysterical than the
remarks of a few other Talizens both in response to his remarks and to
remarks others have made regarding very sincere statements of concern.
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut

From jrcole@umich.eduMon Apr 8 17:19:14 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 17:10:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Defamation
Arsalan and Derek:
1) If I were conducting a seminar at the University of Michigan, and any
of the students behaved as Arsalan has on this net, I would
unhesitatingly expel that student from my class. That is, if I were
conducting a discussion of some issue, and students gave their views,
based on the documents we had reviewed, and one of the students stood up
and said to the others: "You cannot say that! It undermines the
Covenant! This entire class is an exercise in undermining the
Covenant!" This would be an attempt by this student to impose his or her
theological views on a group of people engaged in reasoned study. It
would be unacceptable behavior and I would not stand for it. Those
Baha'is who confuse narrowmindedness with firmness in the covenant will
eventually have to come to terms with the real world, where this sort of
behavior is not generally tolerated.
I would, incidentally, also not put up with a Christian student crying
"heresy!" or a Muslim student attempting to stop seminar students from
studying Rushdie's novels. That a Baha'i should behave in similar
ways on a public forum dedicated to scholarship is a matter of deep shame
to the entire community.
2) Arsalan has not in fact done what the House suggested he do. He has
not identified a specific statement that he feels covenantally on shakey
ground, and interrogated it or asked that it be reconsidered. We can always
have a reasoned discussion of any particular statement made. Rather, he
has resorted to factionalism by branding a group of people "dissidents"
and tarring them all with the brush of deliberately attempting to
undermine the Covenant. This is simple McCarthyism in Baha'i guise. It
is the sort of bullying that has dogged independent-minded Baha'is since the
1917 Reading Room affair at least, and it is time someone stood up to it.
This is quite aside from the possibility that the suggestion the House
made on how to deal with conflicts on e-mail may not be best suited
specifally to Talisman, which is not a Baha'i list and has its own list
rules; those who refuse to abide by those list rules (which only call for
a bit of civility) really have a duty in conscience to resign.
cheers Juan Cole, Department of History, University of Michigan

From derekmc@ix.netcom.comTue Apr 9 00:51:20 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 13:47:08 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: letters
---- Begin Forwarded ; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, DEREK COCKSHUT wrote:
> I do not believe I have ever or would augue the point that every word
> that is indirectly attributed to Shoghi Effendi is true in a theology
> sense.
Maybe you would not; some on this list and in regular Baha'i
interaction
quite definitely do.
The reality is; it is not for the likes of you or I to decide
> which of the multitude of statements that come from the Guardian have
a
> 'permanent' status or a 'temporay' status that responsibilty lies
with
> the House of Justice. Your point over the tablet showed clearly that
> the Guardian understood where His authority is and the Universal
House
> of Justice's authority, that is something we all should learn from.
The issue of 'permanent' or 'temporary' was not raised by my posting.
The letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi an excerpt from which I posted
did
not address any abstract issue of the line between the authority of the
Guardian and that of the House, that is the point, it addressed a very
specific issue and on the premise of there being nothing in the
teachings on a specific subject
suggested that the future House might rule on it. But there _is_
something in the teachings on the specific subject, therefore
invalidating the premise of the statement.
Jackson
My dear Jackson
That fact the Guardian did not make a ruling on the subject shows He
knew where the line was.I suggest you read the Dispensation of
Baha'u'llah 4th section it is dealt with there .
Kindest Regards
Derek Cock shut.
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlTue Apr 9 00:52:22 1996
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 23:34:40 +0000 (EZT)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: nothing in the Writings...
Jackson,
could you give us the other instance, in Arohanui, of
Shoghi Effendi incorrectly saying that there is nothing in the
Writings on a subject? And the source of the tablet by `Abdu'l-
Baha on vivisection?
My favourite instance of such a lacuna is this letter dated 17
June 1954, and included in Unfolding Destiny p 334. The
secretary writes:
There is no specific
minimum age mentioned in the Baha'i teachings at which girls
may marry. In the future, this and other questions unspecified
will be dealt with by the International House of Justice. In the
meantime, we must not be too strict in enforcing our opinions
on peoples still living in primitive social orders.

This letter has a postscript by Shoghi Effendi (only letters with
some such authentication are included in Unfolding Destiny). It
shows that as late as 1954 Shoghi Effendi was not familiar with
the Questions and Answers of the Aqdas. Question 43 says:
QUESTION: Concerning the betrothal of a girl before
maturity.
ANSWER: This practice hath been pronounced
unlawful by the Source of Authority, and it is
unlawful to announce a marriage earlier than
ninety-five days before the wedding.
Question 92 says much the same but specifies the age of maturity
in relation to marriage at 15
QUESTION: In a treatise in Persian on various questions,
the age of maturity hath been set at fifteen; is
marriage likewise conditional upon the reaching of
maturity, or is it permissible before that time?
ANSWER: Since the consent of both parties is
required in the Book of God, and since, before
maturity, their consent or lack of it cannot be
ascertained, marriage is therefore conditional upon
reaching the age of maturity, and is not permissible
before that time.
Another lacuna, which confuses the issue somewhat, is this letter
from Shoghi Effendi which says there is nothing in the teachings
about exercise:

"The Tablet to a Physician was addressed to a man who
was a student of the old type of healing prevalent in the East and
familiar with the terminology used in those days, and. He
addresses him in terms used by the medical men of those days.
These terms are quite different from those used by modern
medicine, and one would have to have a deep knowledge of this
former school of medicine to understand the questions Baha'u'llah
was elucidating. Baha'u'llah has recommended that people seek
the help and advice of experts and doctors: He does not say
which school they should belong to.
Likewise there is nothing in the teachings about whether
people should eat their food cooked or raw: exercise or not
exercise: resort to specific therapies or not: nor is it forbidden to
eat meat. (From a letter written on on behalf of Shoghi Effendi
to an individual believer, December 18, 1945)

Which is odd, because the second verse of the tablet he is
referring to does contain something about 'exercise and not
exercise'
[2] How beneficial is exercise when one['s stomach] is
empty for through it the limbs become strengthened; and
how dark a calamity is exercise when one['s stomach] is
full!

Clearly Shoghi Effendi was familiar with the general contents at
least of this tablet. Did he just forget the mention of exercise in
it, or should we regard his "there is nothing in the teachings
about ..." as less than literal. Maybe he just thought that this
particular individual wouldn't profit from the Lawh-i-tibb? Could
his statement that there is nothing regarding the age of maturity
for marriage likewise mean that he thought it was not the time
(in relation to teaching in Africa) to be imposing such rules?
Could he conceivably not have read the Questions and Answers by 1954,
bearing in mind that he had partially completed a codification when
he died in 1957? (It would be nice to know whether the stipulation of
the age of maturity at 15 in the codification was one of the parts which
Shoghi Effendi himself had catalogued).

Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn ph: 31-43-3216854
Andre Severinweg 47 email: Sen.McGlinn@RL.RuLimburg.NL
6214 PL Maastricht, the Netherlands
***
When, however, thou dost contemplate the innermost essence of things,
and the individuality of each,
thou wilt behold the signs of thy Lord's mercy . . ."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlTue Apr 9 00:52:44 1996
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 23:33:47 +0000 (EZT)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: tribunal merging
The letter (on behalf) regarding the Tribunal is as follows:
The Universal Court of Arbitration and the International
Tribunal are the same. When the Baha'i State will be established
they will be merged in the Universal House of Justice.
(17 June 1933)
So far as I know this has never been published, and I have only
this sentence, cited in a compilation on World Government dated
5 December 1990.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn ph: 31-43-3216854
Andre Severinweg 47 email: Sen.McGlinn@RL.RuLimburg.NL
6214 PL Maastricht, the Netherlands
***
When, however, thou dost contemplate the innermost essence of things,
and the individuality of each,
thou wilt behold the signs of thy Lord's mercy . . ."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

From richs@microsoft.comTue Apr 9 00:53:40 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 13:42:13 -0700
From: Rick Schaut
To: "'Talisman@indiana.edu'"
Subject: RE: Teaching Today
Dear Friends,
First, I agree with much of what David says. There is, however, one
remark which caught my eye. David writes:
>>I think
>>I've come to the conclusion lately that we need to focus first on
>>the quality of our community life, and thus make declaration and
>>the subsequent association with the Baha'i community a cause of joy
>>again.
First, a slight clarification. Community life is one of a number of
things we need to work on in parallel. It is a _necessary_ condition
for entry by troops, but it is not sufficient.
Secondly, what took you so long to figure this out!? More than three
years ago, the Universal House of Justice said precisely the same thing:
we won't have entry by troops without an appropriately supportive and
vibrant community life. Far earlier than that, Shoghi Effendi said that
unless people find in the Baha'i Faith something better than they
already have, people will not enter the Faith in large numbers.
Indeed, if one is looking for causes for the dismal state of affairs in
our community, one cannot regard the tendency of people of capacity to
recuse themselves from community life as insignificant. Rather than
becoming disillusioned with the way our Spiritual Assemblies have been
behaving, we chould have spent our time studying the guidance from the
Universal House of Justice, and patiently bringing this guidance to the
attention of these Assemblies.
Of course, if we use this guidance as a club with which to beat,
severely and about the head and shoulders, these tender seedlings of the
Administrative Order into submission to our views, then the results are
likely to be equally dismal.
If this is how our intellectuals are going to bring about change in the
community, and it takes them years to reach conclusions which have
already been stated, in no uncertatain terms, by the various Heads of
our Faith over the course of several decades, no wonder the Baha'i
Community has been held in the grips of a death-spiral. And, there is
little wonder as to why intellectuals feel they have been subjected to
waves of anti-intellectualism.
Warmest Regards,
>Rick Schaut

From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comTue Apr 9 00:54:04 1996
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 96 16:12:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: "asadighi@ptialaska.net"
<"asadighi@ptialaska.net"@esds01.mrgate.bmoa.umc.dupont.com>,
talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Defamation
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Arsalan,
You wrote:
> The problem is precisely that the authority and the legitimacy
> of the House has been challenged within Talisman over and over
> again.
Nevermind "over and over again", but could you cite a single
instance where "the authority and the legitimacy of the House of
Justice has been challenged" on Talisman by anyone?
If you cannot offer such an example, then I invite you to post an
apology to Talisman participants for making such wild and
unfounded accusations. And if you persisted in making such
outrageous comments and failed to withdraw your accusations, then
I certainly hope the listowner would seriously consider removing
you from Talisman.
ahang

From richs@microsoft.comTue Apr 9 00:54:51 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 15:00:49 -0700
From: Rick Schaut
To: "'Talisman@indiana.edu'"
Subject: Ad Hominem Arguments (RE: Deportment)
Dear Talizens,
>From: jwalbrid[SMTP:jwalbrid@indiana.edu]
>The honored members are reminded that ad hominem arguments are
>inappropriate. For Baha'is this particularly means refraining from
>accusations of covenant-breaking, "undermining" the covenant, etc.
>
I'm afraid I can no longer refrain from speaking my peace in this
regard. For the record, an ad hominem argument suggests, in some way
form or shape, that another argument is invalid due to some defect in
the person presenting the argument.
If I say, "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot," my statment is not an ad
hominem argument (though whether it is an opinion or an observation
seems to be an open question). If, however, I say "Everything Rush
Limbaugh says is unworthy because Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot,"
then my statement is an ad hominem argument.
So, I can say that an argument is invalid due to some provision of the
Covenant, and I can say that I think someone's statements or actions
undermine the Covenant so long as I don't claim that someone's ideas
aren't valid because I think their statements or actions undermine the
Covenant. Neither of these are ad hominem arguments (though the latter
could violate the list's rule regarding statements of apostacy). I can
even take someone to task for behavior I regard as reprehensible, and my
remarks still aren't ad honimen arguments. Yet, I've seen this rule
trotted out for at least the last two of these cases.
On the other hand, if I dismiss someone's line of reasoning because they
simply have not experienced sufficiently horrible injustice at the hands
of the Institutions of the Faith, then I _have_ engaged in ad hominem
argument. I do not recall ever seeing this rule trotted out whenever
I've seen similar arguments made on Talisman.
>
From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduTue Apr 9 00:59:24 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 15:28:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: talisman
Subject: letters/science/etc.
Many Baha'is seem to have developed a way of relating to tablets and
Guardian's letters as if they existed outside of linear time. This is
demonstrated, for example, in the frequent publishing of quotes from this
correspondence material without any information as to dates or recipients.
If 'Abdu'l-Baha states in a tablet that he wants/hopes/expects something to
happen "soon," is it reasonable to suppose that this means anything other
than a short period of time after the date of writing, a very few years at
most? Equally, when tablets or Guardian's letters refer to something as
being for the "future" or the "not yet" is it necessary to assume a priori
that "yet" cannot have come after half a century, a century, or more? Might
not we be actually prolonging the "not yet" by refusing to consider that we
may have reached the "future"? Or might we even miss the "future" entirely?
In the collection Arohanui, there is a letter written on behalf of Shoghi
Effendi in the early 1950s stating that it is not time for a separate NSA for
New Zealand and that a combined NSA for New Zealand and Australia should
continue for now but that separation will occur in the future. I suspect
that if Shoghi Effendi had died that year that this letter would still be
being quoted to affirm that there should not be a separate NSA for New
Zealand until the "future." In fact, Shoghi Effendi had a separate NSA
established just over five years later. The future is not necessarily
distant.
An equal problem with this use of material out of time is that it leads to an
assumption that the conditions addressed by the text are those current now
rather than those current at the time of writing. For example, a quote was
used recently to suggest that current methods of textual analysis were not
adequate to approach the writings and true understanding awaited new
developments in methods and techniques. But the methods that are used now
_are_ new since the text was revealed and were not available at the time
Baha'u'llah was writing.
Baha'is are often keen to suggest that scientific and technological
developments and new social ideas after 1844 are a result of the vivifying
spirit of the new revelation acting on the minds of humanity; well and good,
but isn't it as likely that the same premise would apply to the new
techniques of historiography and textual analysis that have been developed in
the last 100 years?
Something which has been brought up repeatedly to supposedly invalidate the
usefulness of 'scientific' knowledge in respect of understanding the writings
is that scientific understanding changes over time.
In the Aqdas, Baha'u'llah states that those who are ill should consult a
competent physician. Looking at this in terms of Western medicine (setting
aside the issue of the efficacy of traditional Eastern medicine as it
existed in the community that was being immediately addressed), this advice
was given at a time when such fundamental concepts as blood groups, vitamins,
and hormones were unknown, and when the idea of asepsis was still considered
new-fangled. In 1878, there was even an extended debate in the British
Medical Journal on whether a ham cured by a menstruating woman would spoil,
with a number of doctors arguing that it would.
Basically, _no_ Western physician of the 1870s would approach competence by
the standards of the 1990s. But at any point in time we can make an informed
best judgment as to what constitutes competence at that current time. Such
judgments are not going to be made identically by all individuals, but will
be made on the basis of an individually accepted set of more or less valid
assumptions. We should _expect_ the bases for such judgments to change over
time; that they do, does not invalidate the possibility of making
specifically situated judgments.
It is a fallacy to expect once and for all judgments and understandings; it
is equally fallacious to deny the usefulness of anything other than a
definitive understanding. The principle of consulting competent physicians
requires us to change our concepts about health and medicine over time.
There is no reason why what is applicable in regard to medical science should
not be considered applicable in regard to sciences/knowledge in general.
Problems arise when people think they are looking for _right_ answers when
all that is available are best current understandings. But to achieve that
best current understanding we must acknowledge the provisional nature of all
accepted understandings. We cannot insist on their immutability. Nor can we
avoid the responsibility to best understand by saying that the methods
available are not definitive.
Shoghi Effendi stated that a large part of the blame for the persecution of
'Abdul'-Baha lay not on the Covenant breakers but on the shoulders of the
Western Baha'is because of their incorrect beliefs and teaching about the
station of 'Abdu'l-Baha. Why did they have these incorrect beliefs? Because
they used an interpretive framework of Christian terminology and concepts
that was not appropriate for understanding the writings and because they did
not understand the context of, or relationships among, the texts themselves.

In the Iqan, Baha'u'llah refers to "He whom God shall make manifest" in the
third person and future tense, therefore it was argued that this could not
refer to Baha'u'llah but must refer to another Manifestation after him,
i.e.'Abdu'l-Baha. (Taking it further, some argued that it could not refer to
'Abdu'l-Baha as he was already alive when the Iqan was written and so it must
refer to someone to be born later. This idea was combined with certain
others and a full blown doctrine of a third Manifestation was developed.
Some people believed he would be born in the USA.)
Of course, the Iqan was written _before_ Baha'u'llah's public declaration
which is why the phrase appears this way. It is ironic that it comes at the
end of a long discussion of the need to distinguish between prophetic
material in sacred text that is to be taken literally and that to be taken
figuratively, in which Baha'u'llah criticizes those who foolishly prevent
themselves from seeing the truth by insisting on the literal interpretation.
Considering the emotion that the subject of Covenant breaking still arouses,
it should be a dire warning that the Covenant breakers' activities were only
successful to the extent they were because of the ammunition they were given
by the totally sincere and mistaken distortions of the Western Baha'is. It
is worth noting that those who on the basis of 'Abdu'l-Baha's own statements
did not agree with the majority opinion on the station of 'Abdu'l-ě Baha
were
regarded as being spiritually deficient and this was believed to explain
their inability to see things as the majority did.
Sincerity and spirituality are all very well and necessary but they can be as
dangerous as their opposite if not associated with appropriate knowledge.
This is not simply an issue related to the understanding of middle-eastern
languages and culture. It is equally true of both texts originally written
in English and for understanding the development of the faith as a community.

In the early 1980s, I was helping check the notes for a book being published
by the BPT in Wilmette. The author stated that Shoghi Effendi had instructed
someone to stop doing something. When we checked the source we found it was
a cable. The word "stop" did appear, but it simply meant "period" (to
translate into American); it ended a sentence. The person using the cable
was literate, but in _American_ English, and had no idea of the conventions
of British English cables which had led to a complete misreading of the
communication.
Once when I was giving a presentation in a large midwestern city, I referred
to the literature available to American Baha'is in the early 1900s. I was
interrupted by a man who told me this could not be so as he was told there
were no books in those days. I explained that this was a common
misapprehension stemming from projecting backward in time the relative
shortage of books in the later 1920s and 1930s, but that by 1912 there were
around a hundred titles in print including most of the main works of
Baha'u'llah. He said that this couldn't be true as he had been taught the
faith by so and so and they said there were no books in those days, and they
wouldn't have told him something that was not true. I explained again and
told him that the books were available in the archives in Wilmette and older
Baha'i community libraries for anyone to see. He stated that this didn't
matter as the people who taught him the faith would not have lied to him. I
continued with the presentation.
What was amazing was his absolute, sincere, and pleasantly expressed firmness
of conviction that led him to be both impervious to evidence and quite
comfortable with, in effect, calling me a liar in public. But he was wrong;
anyone he taught this was being given wrong information; and his judging
someone's 'knowledge' of the faith by whether they agreed with this was
wrong. No matter how 'spiritual' he was, he was still wrong in these facts
and this matters because it distorted his view of the faith and it matters
_more_ because of his conviction and sincerity. And it matters even more
because conviction and sincerity in support of superstition
militates against being able to attract people to the Cause of God rather
than the cause of the beliefs of those nice people who taught me even if
they don't stand up to scrutiny by anyone who cares to actually
investigate them.
If we are claiming that science and religion are compatible, surely those
aspects of our religion that _are_ amenable to objective processes need
to be in conformity with them before we can legitimately ask to be taken
seriously.
Jackson

From asadighi@ptialaska.netTue Apr 9 01:00:19 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 14:32:14 -0800
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Defamation
Dear Ahang,
I do believe in what I said and I stand by what I said. If you or
others and the list owner do not feel that I belong in such company, as I
said, I will more than glad to remove myself from your midst. To whom should
I direct the apology anyway? To the subgroup I alluded to in my message? If
you can come up with the list of names I would be very glad to consider your
suggestion.
I will also be more than glad to post the incidents that I find to
be challenges to the Covenant and are an attempt to undermine the
Administrative Order. If that is the wish of the friends, I will be happy to
do so. The only reason I have not done that so far is because I thought it
was quite obvious, did not want to accuse any one person of any wrongdoing,
and did not want to cause unnecessary confusion.
I have also suggested that we should appeal to the House of Justice
for a resolution to these problems that keep coming up and are causing
contention and strife. Let me assure you, dear sir, that by removing me, you
have dome me a great favor, and you have left the problem untouched. Do you
really think that I am the only one who believes what I said? Do you really
believe that by silencing the ones who do speak their minds without fear of
the High Priests of Talisman you have resolved all the problems? There will
always be characters like me who, to quote one of my admirers, "inject heir
venom" among you, and be shameless enough to quote from the Writings
passages that some of you do not approve of. I suggest we deal with the
underlying problem rather than finding scapegoats like me. Mind you, I love
the theatrics of being portrayed as a martyr!
Ahang, please spare me the rhetoric, will you? Wild, unfounded, and
outrageous, hmmm? Did you run of accusatory terms somewhere? I am sure there
are those who would be more than glad to help you to come up with more words
to use in your attacks. Good luck.
Arsalan

>From: NAME: Ahang Rabbani
> FUNC: ENGG-ESD-REOH
> TEL: 586-2524
>To: NAME: asadighi@ptialaska.net <"ASADIGHI@PTIALASKA.NET"@ESDS01@MRGATE@BMOA>,
> TALISMAN@INDIANA.EDU@UMC@ESVAX
>
>
>Arsalan,
>
>You wrote:
>
>> The problem is precisely that the authority and the legitimacy
>> of the House has been challenged within Talisman over and over
>> again.
>
>Nevermind "over and over again", but could you cite a single
>instance where "the authority and the legitimacy of the House of
>Justice has been challenged" on Talisman by anyone?
>
>If you cannot offer such an example, then I invite you to post an
>apology to Talisman participants for making such wild and
>unfounded accusations. And if you persisted in making such
>outrageous comments and failed to withdraw your accusations, then
>I certainly hope the listowner would seriously consider removing
>you from Talisman.
>
>ahang.
>
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes

From asadighi@ptialaska.netTue Apr 9 01:01:08 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 14:32:38 -0800
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: New and Improved Baha'i Faith
[The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
PERMISSION IS NOT GRANTED TO COPY, OR DISTRIBUTE THIS MESSAGE IN ANY FORM,
EITHER IN PART OR IN ITS ENTIRETY.
Dear Mr. SCHOLL,
Please allow me to ask some very hypothetical questions that are in line
with what you have proposed. Just for clarification, I do not advocate any
of the following.
____________________________________________________________________________
__________
Why stop at just these two issues? I can think of several other issues that
we can ask the team of experts you propose to study. For example:
I. PARTISAN POLITICS:
Recently some have advocated that the principle of noninvolvement in
partisan politics is old fashioned and time for change has come. Should the
team of experts study whether to abolish this principle? I am sure many on
Talisman would encourage support for the political left.
II. BIGAMY:
It appears to me that in the Most Holy Book Baha'u'llah allows bigamy.
Based on everything I have seen; how statements made by the Master, the
Guardian, and the House are routinely ignored by some participants on this
forum; why not fight for the right of men to have more than one wife? This
should be the right thing to do in many countries as it is the law of the
land. We will be obeying the law of the land, after all and if there is so
much concern for women being excluded from the House I find this to be a
more problematic issue as it directly affect many thousands of Baha'is
living in countries where they could freely practice bigamy. I don't see any
excuse why this should not be included on the agenda.
III. ABORTION ON DEMAND:
Why not only allow abortion on demand, but encourage it. After all, it is a
question of the right of an individual and would also help the problem of
overpopulation, no? I don't know of any direct references in what Nima
called the primary Texts, i.e., the Writings of Baha'u'llah, the Master, and
the Bab that abortion is categorically forbidden. It is the law of the land
in many many countries. It is also directly related to the issue of equal
rights. Right now only wealthy women can have abortions, and the poor have
to put up with many unwanted children and additional poverty. It sure
appears a 'moral inconsistency' not to allow equal and free access to this
procedure.
IV. COVENANT-BREAKERS:
Association with Covenant-Breakers should be allowed according to some of
the recent posts on Talisman. The reasoning was that all those admonitions
against association and shunning of Covenant Breakers are now passé. We are
living in new times and a few lost souls can not harm this Faith any longer.
Should we study this too?
V. INFALLIBILITY: Why do we need an infallible institution like the
Universal House of Justice anyway? We can do just fine with the group of
experts to make all the decisions. After all, according to you, the House is
morally inconsistent and by implication not as infallible as we want like to
believe. Why not solve the problem once and for all?
VI. GAY RIGHTS:
I can only assume that many consider this as one of the worst instances of
moral inconsistencies facing the Baha'is community. This moral inconsistency
relates to both the Guardian and the House of Justice. Mind you, this is not
an issue for me personally, but it relates to what you have proposed. Why
alienate all those souls anyway? Science and religion must go hand in hand,
religious truth is relative, so on and so forth, the reasoning goes. Why not
make it legal for gay and lesbian couples to marry within the Faith? Should
the team of experts decide that Local Spiritual Assemblies are now empowered
to conduct gay marriages?
I can go on, but you get the gist of what I am trying to say. The problem I
see is that there is no way that you can preserve the unity of the community
if one opens the door to any of these issues. Unity will be the very first
casualty.
The Universal House of Justice, in my opinion, is the only Institution that
can preserve the unity and integrity of the Baha'i world. Any tampering with
the system, as designed by the Master and interested by the Guardian will
have disastrous consequences.
Arsalan

>Dear Derek,
>
>Gee, thanks for posing the question so, uh, delicately!
>
>You ask if I believe that 1. the House of Justice lacks moral consistency,
>and 2. if that means I believe they are acting immorally under certain
>circumstances.
>
>I think it helpful to separate the two questions. In answer to #1, yes I
>think that at times there is a moral inconsistency in some of the House's
>pronouncements. For example, the House of Justice has gone on record as
>supporting the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, but does not abide by
>the Declaration in that it refuses to allow freedom of expression among
>Baha'is via the use of censoring boards. Another example is the
>inconsistency between our stated principle in equality of between the sexes
>and the exclusion of women from serving on one of the elected bodies within
>the Baha'i faith.
>
>I don't believe that this means that the House of Justice is immoral. I
>believe that they have reached their current views in an honest and
>faithful way and that they are acting in good faith. I would liken it to
>acknowledging that to some degree we are all immoral if we take a
>legalistic approach. For example, I try to overcome my lower self and
>cultural brainwashing by living a moral life. Yet at times I am painfully
>aware of my sexist and racist reactions to persons and situations.
>Intention does come into play in the discussion. So, I believe that it was
>a moral inconsistency to keep woman off any Baha'i institution, including
>the early US assemblies, but I do not see Abdu'l-Baha as being immoral for
>temporarily letting the status quo hold sway over certain communties. Also,
>I think that those early Baha'is who petitioned Abdu'l-Baha to reconsider
>his position, despite what the explicit text stated, were acting morally by
>faithfully questioning and petitioning the Head of the faith to reconsider
>his position, again, despite what the explict text stated. Now, 80 some
>years later historical and textual research calls into question the
>explicit text and raises issues of moral consistency (not to mention
>scriptural consistency). This does not mean that suddenly we need to hurl
>slurs at the House of Justice for not adopting change at this moment.
>
>I would prefer to see Baha'is adopt a process similiar to that of some
>Christian communions by setting up a team of experts (both scholars of the
>history of the faith and its texts, those with mature experience in the
>faith, eg some Counsellors, Baha'is with experience in administration, eg
>former NSA members, and some, dare I say it, lay Baha'is) to work on the
>topic. In Christian churchs such consultative and policy advising ad hoc
>bodies may spend years researching, debating, discussing, developing policy
>papers that are floated to the community at large for discussion and
>feedback, then they go back and do some more work and eventually they
>develop a policy statement that will be presented as the current binding
>and authoritative position of the community. I would like to see such a
>process implemented on this topic and others within the Baha'i communty.
>For example, as beautiful as many of the recent statements from the World
>Centre have been, I think there were times when they could have been
>improved by a more public process of consultation between the World Centre
>and Baha'is at all levels. One of the key components to this process is the
>willingness of the community to openly discuss the issues in a more public
>way. But this takes me back to moral inconsistency #1, the lack of an open
>community due to restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of
>publication that is now in place. Which is one of the reasons why I think
>ending review is an even more pressing moral issue than opening up service
>on all elected Baha'i bodies to all persons regardless or race or gender.
>
>Steve Scholl
>
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes

From asadighi@ptialaska.netTue Apr 9 01:01:36 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 15:07:28 -0800
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Deportment
Dear List Owner,
I am truly sorry for having put you in a very difficult position. I realize
that it is not easy to put fires out during these battles.
Some of the members of this group have asked me to either apologize or
resign, or to resign outright because of my statements. I do stand by what I
said. I offer no apologies to anyone for speaking my mind. Yet, if you and
others believe that I have broken the list rules I will be more than glad to
unsubscribe. Just give the word. But, please be gentle as I am very
sensitive! ;-)
For the sake of clarification, I have not accused any one person of
anything. I have not accused anyone of Covenant-Breaking.
Best regards,

Arsalan

>I apologize for not intervening sooner, but I have been busy with other
>urgent matters.
>
>The honored members are reminded that ad hominem arguments are
>inappropriate. For Baha'is this particularly means refraining from
>accusations of covenant-breaking, "undermining" the covenant, etc.
>
>John Walbridge
>List Owner
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes

From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzTue Apr 9 01:01:54 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 12:11:17 +1200
From: **Golden Eagle**
To: "Arsalan J. Sadighi" , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Defamation
Our dear friend Arsalan wrote:
>I will also be more than glad to post the incidents that I find to
>be challenges to the Covenant and are an attempt to undermine the
>Administrative Order. If that is the wish of the friends, I will be happy to
>do so.
I think that this correspondent is to be heartily congratulated for the
moderation of his tone and the readiness of his intellect -- admirable in
view of the blistering attacks he has had to endure from the "friends".
Open discussion needs opposition in order that progress be made. However,
it also needs the presentation of evidence-based proofs. I think Arsalan
is bound to produce his proofs, or else leave this matter entirely alone,
for his own good, even if he is, in truth, right.
Robert.

From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpTue Apr 9 01:02:49 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 10:20:28 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Bullying
Dear Friends:
I feel miserable and in despair because of your attacks on Arsalan.
To me, this ganging up is so unfair - it reminds me of the terrible
and murderous aspects of bullying in Japanese schools - yet it is
done in the name of 'superior' understanding.
To me, it is simply bullying. Is it thought to be OK because
of the HIGH stature of those doing it? I am absolutely overwhelmed by
the injustice of it.
Friends, friends, friends; have a heart, have a conscience!
Discuss ideas, don't attack people for having them.
If you are unwilling to let people have ideas you don't agree with,
how can you expect to be treated fairly when your own ideas are
out of sync with the majority! You are worse than the people you
accuse!!
S. Friberg

From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comTue Apr 9 01:03:38 1996
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 96 19:34:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: "asadighi@ptialaska.net"
<"asadighi@ptialaska.net"@esds01.mrgate.bmoa.umc.dupont.com>,
talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Deportment
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Arsalan,
You wrote:
> For the sake of clarification, I have not accused any one
> person of anything. I have not accused anyone of
> Covenant-Breaking.
I don't intend to push you, but I fail to see how the above
statement clarifies anything. You certainly have accused
*someone(s)* of Covenant-breaking. Let me review just a few of
your comments.
First you wrote:
> The problem is precisely that the authority and the legitimacy
> of the House has been challenged within Talisman over and over
> again.
For your information, challenging authority and/or the legitimacy
of the House of Justice is precisely the reason that people are
declared Covenant-breakers and tossed out from the community.
Are you not aware the significance of your charges? Do you
really think that you can go about willy-nilly throw such
accusations about and think you won't be called on it?
When I pressed you for examples and specifics, you wrote:
> I will also be more than glad to post the incidents that I find
> to be challenges to the Covenant and are an attempt to
> undermine the Administrative Order. If that is the wish of the
> friends, I will be happy to do so.
Yes, it is the wish of this friend for you to post such
"incidents". In fact, I've been waiting for it all day.
How do you square this comment with your latest backpeddling that
you have not accused anyone of Covenant-breaking? Did you change
your mind during the past couple of hours? If not, produce your
proof and examples!
Then we have the following lame excuse:
> The only reason I have not done that so far is because I
> thought it was quite obvious, did not want to accuse any one
> person of any wrongdoing, and did not want to cause unnecessary
> confusion.
While you may not wish to accuse any *one* person of any
wrongdoings, you certainly seem to have no problem accusing
*everyone* on Talisman of Covenant-breaking.
Also, what is this for not wanting to cause "unnecessary
confusion"? You have single-handedly caused a massive amount of
grief to everyone by accusing each and everyone of us as being a
Covenant-breaker and now wish not to confuse anyone?
Well, I'm confused!!
ahang.
From lbhollin@uxmail.ust.hkTue Apr 9 01:04:27 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 09:53:12 +0800 (HKT)
From: HOLLINGER RICHARD VERNON
To: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
Cc: talisman
Subject: Re: "Right of God"
On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, Jackson Armstrong-Ingram wrote:
> A linear idea of the 'maturing'
> development of the Baha'i community does not work. There are many
> areas where understanding and practice deteriorated, in some there was a
> later revival, in some there has still not been one.
I think the period from about the 1930's to the 1970's may be seen,
retropectively, as a anomolous period in Baha'i history. Certainly, as
Jackson suggests, many aspects of Baha'i community life, at least ouside
of Iran, declined during this period as the focus of the world-wide
community was on the
geographic spread of the faith coupled with the creation of Baha'i
institutions around the world. Local communities in the West became
smaller during this period, partly because of the empahsis on pioneering
and partly because of the introduction of a rule limiting local
communities to the boundaries of legal districts (municipalities).
Smaller communities were necessarily less diverse in their activities
than the larger ones that preceded them. It is often forgotten that in the
early twentieth century there were very well-developed Baha'i communities in
cities such as Ishqabad and Chicago. Remembering the legacy of these
communities and reviewing their activities and accomplishments might well
stimulate some ideas on the revitalization of Baha'i communities today.
Richard
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comTue Apr 9 01:05:11 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 19:02:42 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: Bullying. Time to go to Flaming or is it?
My dear Stephen
I am in complete agreement with you over this, the fact that Arsalan
has dared to post his views that he believes absolutly in the
Institutions of the Faith and the Central figures, and what is wrong in
that pray tell me I wonder. He did not to my recollection attack on a
personal basis anyone in respect of being a Covenant-breaker.I find it
absolutely repugnant that individuals have been posting attacks at him
to apologise , recant or leave the list.Obviously such statements as
his in terms of his devotion to the Cause are unacceptable to some.If
there is an 'offical Talisman creed' of belief in the Baha'i Faith I
would like a copy of it in order to know whay we 'lay' types< with our
puny intellects> are getting ourselves into.
Seriously I believe it is time to back off, Arsalan is fully entitled
to his views which I find amazingly in accord with the Writings.If this
carrys on I might start on a few people myself and we can have a week
of flaming or whatever it is called.
Reminds me of the good old debating society, time to sharpen my pen and
prepare for battle, so whats it to be, is the chap going to be left
alone or do we flame away in CyberWorld War One, the choice is yours.<
I was brought up to never start a fight but always finish it, such good
old world concepts makes the blood pump up.>But I have always loathed
bullies.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
...................................................................
Dear Friends:
I feel miserable and in despair because of your attacks on Arsalan.
To me, this ganging up is so unfair - it reminds me of the terrible
and murderous aspects of bullying in Japanese schools - yet it is
done in the name of 'superior' understanding.
To me, it is simply bullying. Is it thought to be OK because
of the HIGH stature of those doing it? I am absolutely overwhelmed by
the injustice of it.
Friends, friends, friends; have a heart, have a conscience!
Discuss ideas, don't attack people for having them.
If you are unwilling to let people have ideas you don't agree with,
how can you expect to be treated fairly when your own ideas are
out of sync with the majority! You are worse than the people you
accuse!!
S. Friberg
From cfarhoum@osf1.gmu.eduTue Apr 9 01:05:47 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 22:34:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Cheshmak A Farhoumand
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: PLEASE do not delete and take a moment to read.
Dear Friends, i have just returned from a wonderful and exciting trip to
England where i also had the pleasure of meeting our dear Linda
Walbridge.
When i was coming home i was all excited about resubscribing to Talisman
and seeing what i missed while i was away. i am deeply saddened every
time i read glimpse at yet another message which expresses disunity on
this list.
i was all excited about posting a message about Linda and my trip - but i
think i will put it on hold until the time ...
Please friends, as one Baha'i to another, can we not simply agree that we
can not agree on everything and think about posting messages with wisdom
and forethought? My mother always says that in any relationship,
friendship, marriage etc. there is always a thin curtain of
respectability. Every hurtful word or act is like a cut in that curtain,
you can sew over it but the 'scar' remains forever.
i have found one of the things about communicating on internet is the
impersonality - the inability to see the face of the person we are
communicating with - and the joy or sorrow our words bring to their face.
I would like to therefore implore that when we post our messages that we
really think about the consequences of that which we say and its effect
on our friends. i love the words of Baha'u'llah in the Tablet of Maqsud
where he says:

Every word is endowed with a spirit, therefore the
speaker or expounder should carefully deliver his
words at the appropriate time and place, for hte
impression which each word maketh is clearly evident
and perceptible. . . One word may be likened unto
fire another unto light, and hte influence which
both exert is manifest in the world. THerefore the
enlightened man of wisdom should primarily speak with
words as mild as milk, that hte children of men may be
nurtured and edified thereby and may attain the ultimate
goal of human existence which is the station of true
understanding ... one word is like a rose another as
deadly poison. It behoveth a prudent man of wisdom
to speak with utmost leniency and forbearance so that
sweetness of his words may induce everyone to attain
that which befitteth man's station...
Dear friends, i apologize if i have overstepped my rights with the
expression of my views but i hope you know it is done with the utmost
affection for all of you and a desire to promote understanding and
constructive dialogue on a discussion group that has the potential to be
a great source of learning, dialogue and friendship.
Warm regards to all of you,
in Peace,
Sad in Virginia (your sister, Cheshmak)
From TLCULHANE@aol.comTue Apr 9 01:06:14 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 23:14:46 -0400
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: a003@lehigh.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu, TLCULHANE@aol.com
Subject: Re: Religion,scienceand relig...
Dear Bill ,
I appreciate your concerns . *Truth * is one . It has however many
names and paths of which Bahau llah provides a very powerful one . It is not
*Reality * i want to divide into distinct analytic categories; I do recognize
that there are distinct pathways to reality . reason and revelation being two
of those pathways . They are analagous to the masculine and feminine
principle which takes form biologically , intellectually , socially and
metaphysically. In some sense the masculine principle is reason , the
feminine principle is revelation and the ineractive realationship betwen the
two for the first time in history my finally give us a sense of what it
"means" "to be"human. . Both of these principles proceed from one source ,
the *Source* that is *Being* itself. Revelation is, in my view, a particular
self-disclosure (tajalli ) of *Being * . Those souls who have a special
measure of "receptivity" to this self -disclosure we call Prophets or
Manifestations. I do not think it necessary to attribute some form of
waking, walking omniscience to Prophets in order to surrender my heart to the
self -disclosure of *Being* which they represent and make known to us .
The Prophets represent an especially powerful and pregnant vision of
human possibilities for self realization ( that is the true self) or in Abdul
Baha's words of "how to be and how to live." I surrender to their ethical
and spiritual vision because it is in accord with the evolving or unfolding
*nature* of *reality* . The laws which the Prophets annunciate , those
provisions of their "revelation" which constitute the Divine Commands are
meant , as in the reltionship between a lover and a beloved , to draw us
closer to the *nature * of our true selves and become a mean for us to
paricipate in the *Presence of Being *.( guess why I think the House of
Worship is so essential ) This is how I understand Baha u llahs statement in
Gleanings when he exhorts or pleads with us that if we would detach ourselves
from the world - that is the existing social constructions of reality which
limit our vision - we would " . .gain a true knowledge of our own selves -a
knowledge which is the same as the comprehension of Mine own Being. "
One of the means , in my view , by which this "knowledge is apprehended
is the systematic application of reason , which has evolved its own forms ,
methods , ethics and so forth . Most frequently we refer to this as science
and it can arrive at truths independent of revelationas well as the truths
expressed by revelation. The revelation provides the ground within which
applied reason has meaning . There are other means by whch this knowledge may
be ascertained as well ; poetic form , music- dance etc. All of these are
pathways , portals to reality . If I dont assume the Prophets appear to
explain particle physics or the specific physical process by which human
biological forms evolved then it does not matter if "applied reason " within
its own domains of physics or history or biology arrive at certain
understandings which differ from scriptural statements. Perhaps the problem
is not one of Prophetic statement being overthrown by reason, perhaps the
problem is our understanding of what constitutes scripture.
As we have already discussed a good deal of what Bahais call "scripture"
is a response to specific questions and concerns of specific individuals. I
take it as necessary to assume that Baha u llah or any of the Prophets had to
respond in a manner which would be understandable to the person asking the
question based on the limitations of the one asking the question who
presumable had less insight into the evolving strucure of *Reality*. That
science might demonstrate the inaccuracy of a "scriptural "statement" ought
to of no less concern than what appear as contradictory statements within
scripture itself.

It is the underlying vision ( disclosure of Being)and its principles
that which constitutes scripture , in my view, rather than the particular
examples or words used in a given explanation. It s not the words it is the
"meaning" of the words that constitutes the *Revelation * the breaking
through , the rupture of old forms, explanations , meanings . This process
must be re-enacted in every Dispensation , within every generation and every
individual . So this is why the specific form of explanation or examples are
not important to mein themselves. Knowledge of them is important to disclose
the vision and its principles If we do not re-enact the principles
presented to us - the means by which we participate in the self -disclosures
of *Being* we reduce , unintentionally I think, the *revelation * to a dead
letter . It is no longer the living word. It is only as "living word" that
the *revelation * can unfold the meaning of my life and yours in the context
of ". .an ever advancing civilization." In this process apllied reason can
be a very valuable tool as can poetry and music and theatre. These forms ,
which are also evolving with our evolving capacities , can assist us - and I
believe are meant to - to distinguish the specific time bound application of
the written revelation from the underlying vision and principles which
constitute *Revelation*.

I understand the Prophet as creating a model for us of how to understand
and approach *reality * and participate in the dymanic unfolding of *being *
within my soul and the Cosmos. It is that model -its vision and principles-
which are my primary concern rather than the specific situation in and of
itself which the Prophet addressed . If my focus is on the specific situation
, explanation , or examples being used by the Prophet them I may well miss
the underlying vision , miss the principles being expounded and miss the
opportunity for the prophet to "disclose " to me "how to be and how to live"
in terms of the unique constellation of divine attributes/names which
constitute my true self.
The focus on the form of the explanation or the specific example quickly
leads us to professing adherence to the *revelation * concieved as the words
themselves. A poet might say this way lies madness. What happens over and
over again is that we profess belief but are unable to live that belief. Not
because the *revelation* is deficient but because we have confused the
revelation with its words or time bound examples. Five hundred years from
now I hope the world will be a vastly different place than it is now and
that many of the specific problems Bahau llah addressed in the last half of
the 19th century will be resolved.That being the case the specific issues
Bahau llah addressed will not be that instructive to the world 500 years
hence. What will be instructive is the model of *reality* disclosed by Bahau
llah , its underling vision and principles and the example the Prophet
provided us of how to apply that model ; of how to engage the world.
Bil ,l thank you for taking the time to write . I look forward to more of
our conversations. They have helped me better understand not only my own
views but hopefully gleaned a morsel or two of the fathomless ocean of Bahau
llah's *revelation * that marvelous body of work which allows us to discover
and participate in the *nature* of *Reality* - to live in the *Presence 0f
Being.*
warmest regards,
Terry
From A.Aniss@unsw.EDU.AUTue Apr 9 01:07:06 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 14:35:11 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: list rules and covenant
Dear Talismanians,
I like to put some sugestions forward that perhaps can ease our way
in haveing meaningful discussions on Talisman. These are mainly for
the list owner and I think if we incoporate these into the rules it
will help to stop inappropriate statements by individuals.
Let me at this stage say I too believe that certain of our friends
may have been in confrontation with our beloved institutions and have
decided that in their veiw the veiws of the institutions are not
appropriate and so can not agree with them. In this respect have lost
their respect for them and without prior thought have engaged into
puting on screen words that to a common man simply imply as covenant
breaking. I happen to take the view that these will not harm and
have mainly ignored such postings as basicly silly staff.
Going back to suggestions for improvement I like to suggest the following:
1. John to clearly establish that this list is a non-Baha'i list and
is only a list provided at an institution for discussion on all aspects
of Baha'i Faith.
2. John to acknowledge that the Baha'i institutions have total right
in preventing an individual Baha'i to put forward statements which in
their view could be harmful to the Baha'i Faith, and as such individuals
that adhere to that Faith must take care as not to put forward statements
that could jeopardise their right of being a Baha'i.
3. Individuals on the list must consider the list as a list open to
public scrutiny and so must assume that their statements could be used
against them outside the list.

3. Individuals who adhere to the Baha'i Faith must assume that this
list is a non-Baha'i list and must regard statements by other members
in that light and refrain from calling individuals covenant-breaker.
If they think a Baha'i on the list is putting forward statements
that in their view is contraray to the Baha'i view must present the
information to appropriate institutions in their Faith for follow up.
I think the above should cause for caution on the part of both groups
and could help us in going forward on a stronger basis in dicovering
the different aspects of Baith Faith.
With warm regards,
Ahmad.

_______________________________________________________________________
^ ^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss, Tel: Home [61(2)] 505 509 ^
^ Bio-Medical Engineer, Work [61(2)] 694 5915 ^
^ Neuropsychiatric Institute, Mobile 019 992020 ^
^ Prince Henry Hospital, Fax: Work [61(2)] 694 5747 ^
^ Little Bay, N.S.W. 2036, ^
^ Australia. Email: A.Aniss@unsw.edu.au ^
^ Web Page: http://acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.au/~ahmada/ ^
^_______________________________________________________________________^
From Dcorbett@aol.comTue Apr 9 01:07:24 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 23:56:47 -0400
From: Dcorbett@aol.com
To: cfarhoum@osf1.gmu.edu, Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: PLEASE do not delete and take a moment to read.
In a message dated 96-04-08 22:35:14 EDT, cfarhoum@osf1.gmu.edu (Cheshmak A
Farhoumand) writes:
>
> Sad in Virginia (your sister, Cheshmak)
>
>
Thanks for your comments, Chesmak. i currently ignore much of what i read
as a result of some of these discussions. Tonight's US NSA Feast letter
addresses this with regards to comments on the love we must have for each
other in order to be able to teach others.
Allah'u'Abha... i'm glad to hear you had a wonderful trip to England. i
am looking forward to reading of it.
-- Dan
From l.droege@genie.comTue Apr 9 01:07:33 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 03:40:00 UTC 0000
From: l.droege@genie.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: various
Cheshmak,
>...think about the consequences...
Amen.
Re Jung & the Shadow (sort of):
It's been a number of years since I read any Jung, and I don't
remember much about his work, except he had a lot of speculation
about "archetypes" which I think he attributed to "race memory."
I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts about how (or whether)
this "race memory" might actually be tied to commonalities in
the revelations of different Manifestations. I.E. is there
something in Jung's research that might point to the same truths
being revealed to people of different cultures, including those
for whom we have no named Messengers?
Leigh (thinking too much again )
From Alethinos@aol.comTue Apr 9 01:07:46 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 00:10:29 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: The True State of Talisman
My my my . . . Isn't this a pretty picture. Was it not pointed out, weeks
ago now, that discussing an issue such as women on the House would simply
continue an already vicious circle? The circle did not continue because some
people wanted to object to the viewpoint put forward by those suggesting a
change in the current structure, but rather because there was a continious
underlying thread that the Universal House of Justice should somehow be
obliged to pay close heed to the *voice* of Their electorate. This was the
main issue of contention. It did branch off into several secondary (but no
less critical) streams, i.e. the question of infallibility, moral
inconsistancy, etc.
Several people, especially the even-tempered and amazingly patient Kevin
Haines (I assume since we always have folks writing brief hagiographies of
St. Juan we can add to the Court, hmmm?) pointed out a the time that such
discussion would be, essentially futile. Well here it is weeks later. And
again I ask, what has been learned about the issues? Nothing. Speculation,
some of which is interesting and carries some weight, but other than that
no-thing has been learned. Let me spell this out clearly for those that want
to pipe up and claim they have learned something. Not one shread of
information that was not already well known to all has been added. But beyond
that, not one new sentence, tablet, proclamation etc., heretofore never seen
has been revealed by all this fuss and muss.
On the the other hand what has been learned seen is the growing fracture
within the American Baha'i community. If there is a bright spot to all this
wrangling it is this. It is good to see the other rips and tears in the
fabric of this Community. For a long time I have seen far too much evidence
of the others. The senior institutions out of touch with the true conditions
of the American Baha'is or worse aware of it but assuming nothing could be
done. Both attitudes have contributed mightly to the stagnation we face. Then
there is us. We have communities that remind me of nothing more than
self-help groups, or a bunch of senior citizens playing bingo at a church
social. Good Lord how pathetic we must seem to anyone who cares to look
within! Once in a while we manage to whip up a weee frenzy in the name of
*entry by troops* and rush out into the streets and embarass ourselves in
front of the eyes of an extremely callous and distrustful America that sees
us only as some obscure group that can't even find a more original way to
*market* our Faith. We hold elaborate week-end workshops with all sorts of
tech talk about how to teach the masses, find the seekers, reach the right
people, people of influence etc.
The same disease that is causing all this is what is causing the fighting
here. The spiritual diseases of America, it is true, have caused a wonderful
fundamentalism attitude in a community that has become (like the rest of
America) more and more isolated and insolated. On the other we see it here on
Talisman. Where we are told that the Faith is essentially inadequate and
needs to be augemented by incorporating either various liberal-democratic
tenents (wholesale) or adopting as valid late 20th century
political-correctness.
It has been repeatedly suggested by some that while the old world order does
indeed have many wonderful elements within it that obviously hold true, that
have stood the test of time, we should not be looking to retrofit the Faith
with them, but rather see how they will (if at all) find a more mature role
within the Cause of God in the Day. This suggestion has been repeatedly
ignored, or slighted. And we see a returning to suggestions that the Faith
itself is somehow inherently flawed. Such a suggestion is born out of our
axiology and out of the errors of classic liberal philosophy. The combination
of these two makes for a potent stimulant for the individual ego.
I am still waiting for an answer from all those who have spent the last 24
hours taking aim at Arsalan. The question is: how do you answer this verse
from the Guardian. Because it is at the heart of all this mess:
The Administrative Order of the Faith of Baha'u'llah must in
no wise be regarded as purely democratic in character inasmuch as
the basic assumption which requires all democracies to depend fundamentally
upon getting their mandate from the people is altogether
lacking in this Dispensation. In the conduct of the administrative
affairs of the Faith, in the enactment of the legislation necessary
to supplement the laws of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the members of the
Universal House of Justice, it should be borne in mind, are not,
as Baha'u'llah's utterances clearly imply, responsible to those whom
they represent, nor are they allowed to be governed by the feelings,
the general opinion, and even the convictions of the mass of the
faithful, or of those who directly elect them. They are to follow,
in a prayerful attitude, the dictates and promptings of their conscience.
They may, indeed they must, acquaint themselves with the
conditions prevailing among the community, must weigh dispassionately
in their minds the merits of any case presented for their
consideration, but must reserve for themselves the right of an
unfettered decision. "God will verily inspire them with whatsoever
He willeth," is Baha'u'llah's incontrovertible assurance. They, and
not the body of those who either directly or indirectly elect them,
have thus been made the recipients of the divine guidance which is
at once the life-blood and ultimate safeguard of this Revelation.
(World Order of Baha'u'llah, page 153)
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From tan1@cornell.eduTue Apr 9 01:08:44 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:03:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Timothy A. Nolan"
To: rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Defamation
Ahang, you wrote:
> Nevermind "over and over again", but could you cite a single
> instance where "the authority and the legitimacy of the House of
> Justice has been challenged" on Talisman by anyone?
Dear Ahang, I know it is hard to remember things from a few months ago,
but allow me to cite four instances in which the House of Justice,
or the Covenant itself has been challenged on Talisman.
On November 5th, 1995, you yourself wrote this in response to another
member of Talisman:
ahang> Yesterday, in a response to xxxx, you
ahang>categorically denied the infallibility of the House of Justice,
ahang>dismissed Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament, implied He had a
ahang>false vision of how things would unfolded and throw out a large
ahang>body of the Guardian's letters by saying his pronouncements were
ahang>"hasty and informal"!
I don't have the original post to which you were responding, but trust me
you did not imagine these things. Such ideas really were stated on Talisman.
Maybe Ed Price could help with the archives.
Here is another example:
> But it (the rule that only men may be members of the Universal
> House of Justice) is also contradictory to Baha'i values themselves.
Since the House of Justice itself has upheld the rule restricting membership
on that body to men, the author of the above statement is saying that
a decision of the Universal House of Justice is contradictory to Baha'i
values. This is a clear challenge to the authority and legitimacy of
the House of Justice, and contradicts Abdu'l Baha's plain statements
in His Will.
Here is a third example:
> I recognize that the NSA and the Universal House of Justice
>are the ultimate authorities and their rulings are the law. I
>just don't think much of some of their rulings, and want to
>see them overturned by future, wiser successors.
The Universal House of Justice is the "Source of all good and freed from
all error". Their decisions are "the truth and the purpose of God
Himself" according to Abdu'l Baha. Therefore, to say "I don't think
much of some of their rulings", to say that one wants their rulings
"overturned by....wiser successors"....to say this is a clear challenge
to the authority and legitimacy of the House of Justice. In addition,
such comments reveal a lack of clear thinking. How can there be a "wiser
successor" to an institution that is "the source of all good and
freed from all error"? There can be no wiser successor to the source of
all good! Isn't that as plain as day?
The fourth example (I regret I don't have the original. Maybe Ed Price
can help), was when a member of Talisman accused the Universal House
of Justice of being the "perpetrator of injustice" with regard to the
Salmani papers. !!! When a Baha'i accuses the "source of all good"
as being the "perpetrator of injustice", that is a clear challenge to
the authority and legitimacy of the Universal House of Justice.
I do not say that the authors of the above challenges are Covenant
breakers. I do say the statements above are examples of muddled
and non-rigorous thinking, and a failure to consider the NECESSARY
consequences of their ideas.
I really hesitate to get involved in this discussion; this sort of
thing makes me sick at heart, and enervates me. But I have been silent
for several months and I am not willing to let this matter pass without
comment.
Tim Nolan
From Alethinos@aol.comTue Apr 9 01:10:33 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 10:32:12 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Internal Consistency
Dear Mr. Scholl:
Please read this and tell me what it means:
The Administrative Order of the Faith of Baha'u'llah must in
no wise be regarded as purely democratic in character inasmuch as
the basic assumption which requires all democracies to depend fundamentally
upon getting their mandate from the people is altogether
lacking in this Dispensation. In the conduct of the administrative
affairs of the Faith, in the enactment of the legislation necessary
to supplement the laws of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the members of the
Universal House of Justice, it should be borne in mind, are not,
as Baha'u'llah's utterances clearly imply, responsible to those whom
they represent, nor are they allowed to be governed by the feelings,
the general opinion, and even the convictions of the mass of the
faithful, or of those who directly elect them. They are to follow,
in a prayerful attitude, the dictates and promptings of their conscience.
They may, indeed they must, acquaint themselves with the
conditions prevailing among the community, must weigh dispassionately
in their minds the merits of any case presented for their
consideration, but must reserve for themselves the right of an
unfettered decision. "God will verily inspire them with whatsoever
He willeth," is Baha'u'llah's incontrovertible assurance. They, and
not the body of those who either directly or indirectly elect them,
have thus been made the recipients of the divine guidance which is
at once the life-blood and ultimate safeguard of this Revelation.
(World Order of Baha'u'llah, page 153)
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From meghas@sparcom.comTue Apr 9 01:10:39 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 09:42 PDT
From: Megha Shyam
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Documents from Abdu'l Baha Installment 1
Dear friends;
Here is the first 50 letters I have indexed and hopefully I can post the
rest by Wed this week.
There are four fields listed in this order
Letter addressed to; main topic, translator; date of translation
I'm quite certain that many of these have already been published or are
avaialble at the archives in Haifa and the US national Center
Thanks for your patience
Megha Shyam
1. Arthur S. Agnew; Differences between Material and Divine Civilization;
Mirza Moneer Zain and Mirza Ali Kuli Khan; no date
2. Arthur S. Agnew; Ability and capacity; Ahmad Esphahani; June 10, 1907
3. Maime Agnew; Baha'i Books - instruction regarding distribution; Portion
translated by Mirza Ahmad; Dec 16, 1909
4. Arthur and Maime Agnew; Prayers; Mirza Ameenu'llah Fareed; revealed
April 13, 1907
5. Arthur S. Agnew; Divine Unity (Decisions by Chicago and NY Spiritual
Assembly must be approved at Acca before being printed and published.); Ali
Kuli Khan; June 30, 1906
6. B. Jacobsen; Duties of Board of Consultation, Feasts to inagurate as
to resurrect Lord's supper, Trials caused by promotion, Naming children,
Spiritual Baptism; Ameenu'llah Fareed; July 29, 1907
7. Unknown; Portions of a tablet revealing His Station; Translator unknown
8. Mrs. J. O. Wilhelm; Fast, Greatest Name; A. M. Fareed; Feb 16, 1905
9. Roy Wilhelm; Associate with all religions with joy and fragrance, Keep
aloof from wavering souls; Unknown translator; Oct 14, 1914
10. Roy Wilhelm; Credentials for Mahoud Khan; Ahmad Sohrab; May 28, 1916
11. Roy Wilhelm; Conferences at Green Acre; Translator unknown; Dec 27, 1916
12. Roy Wilhelm; Directing Wilhelm to announce that publication was a
mistake; Mirza Ahmad Sohrab; Aug 14, 1909
13. Roy Wilhelm; Spirit of Abdu'l Baha; Mirza Ameen; Dec 21, 1904
14. Unidentified Believer; Marriage; Mirza Ameenu'llah Fareed; Feb 9, 1903
15. Mrs. Dealy; Happiness in times of trouble is proof of nobility;
Translator not identified; date not visible
16. Mrs. Dealy; Afflictions;Translator unknown; date unknown
17. Mr. Dealy; Concerning his work for the Cause; M. A. Esphahani; July 4, 1906
18. Mrs. Noble, OH; Tests and Trials cause agitation to weak hearts; Ali
Kuli Khan; 1903
19. Chicago believer; Lesson for those who are mindful; Zia Baghdadi; Sept
2, 1913
20. Mrs. Ruddiman; Christ and Other Prophets (distinction between Father
and Son);Mirza Fareed Ameen; Jan 7, 1904
21. Rose Byrne; Holy Spirit (breath of) living advice and Exhortation; M.
A. Esphahani; Oct 16, 1906
22. Rose Byrne; Teach every ignorant one, guide to Eternal Life; M. A.
Esphahani; Oct 16, 1906
23. Rose Byrne; He is God (an explanation); M. A. Esphahani; Dec 17, 1906
24. Mrs. Brittingham; I am the Rose of Sharon and the Lilly of the valley;
Mirza Ahmad Sohrab; May 18, 1910
25. Mrs. Moss; Eternal Life (guiding of souls); Tranlator unknown; Date
unknown
26. An American believer; Distinction between Father and Son, Christ and
other Prophets; Tranlator unknown; Jan 1904
27. Sarah Van Winkle; Center of the Covenant appointed to close all doors of
error; Shoghi Rabbani; July 18, 1919.
28. An American Believer; Shortcomings (believers realize them, one must
search for his own; Mirza Ahmad Sohrab; Nov 1, 1909
29. Ella Quant; Success and progress depend upon firmness in the Love of
God; Mirza Ameen; August 1, 1908
30.Ella C. Quant; One's own shortcomings; Mirza Ahmad; Nov 1, 1909
31. Henry Kricht; Now is the time for thee to move thy tongue in praise of
God; Ameenu'llah Fareed; July 14, 1906
32. Rosa V. Winterburn; Marriage; Translator unknow; date unknown
33. Mrs. Mary M. Rabb; Ordeal is of two kinds; De. Fareed; July 27, 1909
34. Mrs. True; Temple Land blessed; Monever Khanum; June 19, 1908
35. Mrs. True; Temple (debt clear, corner stone may be laid by Abdul Baha)*
written by Ameenu'llah Fareed; July 23, 1908
36. Mrs. True; The Tomb of the Bab; Ameenu'llah Fareed; September 15, 1908
37. Mrs. True; Universal House of Justice (members are to be men); Ameen
Fareed; July 29, 1909
38. Mrs. True; Greatest Name; Ameenu'llah Fareed; Sept 15, 1908
39. Mrs. True; Rejoicing the news that debt for the land for the
Mashrak-el-Azkar is clear; Mirza Ahmad Sohrab; Date unknown
40. Mrs. True; Mashrak-el-Azkar; Zia Baghdadi; Date unknown
41: Mrs. True; Mashrak-el-Azkar; Zia Baghdadi; Date unknown
42. Unidentified believer; Greatest name is Baha; Ameen'ullah Fareed; Mar
22, 1906
43. Mrs. True; Pharisces (did not understand the scriptures, this day
heedless ones oppose Baha'u'llah); Ali Kuli Khan; July 8, 1908
44. Mrs. Corinne True; Universal Peace (prophesy of) Promise of; Ameen U.
Fareed; July 19, 1908
45. Unidentified believer; The Hague (Universal Peace, Universal language);
M. A. Esphahani; Oct 17, 1906
46. Elizabeth Stewart; Gifts of an invisible world; Tranlsator unknown; July
1900
47. Louis Gregory; Claim presented to the pesrian Government for stolen
articles; Mirza Ahmad Sohrab; July 28, 1913
48. L. Gregry; Racial (behold the reality of humanity); Ahmad Sohrab; Nov
17, 1909
49. Mrs. Clifford Gable; Thorne of God (man should learn of); Translator
unknown; Date unknown
50. Montford Mills; Meetings (purpose of, Procedure of, Speakers); Dr.
Fareed; August 12, 1909

From jrcole@umich.eduTue Apr 9 11:21:42 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 01:25:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: "Timothy A. Nolan"
Cc: rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Defamation
Timothy:
It is a basic principle of human rights that in any system a defeated
minority has the right to continue to differ publicly with the policy
decisions of the victorious majority.
That is, Labor must acquiesce in Tory rule, recognize its legitimacy,
obey the laws passed under it, etc. But Labor ministers are not
forbidden to criticize Tory policies. In the US Methodist Church, as
well, Methodist critics speak out against some church policies.
We do not have parties in the Baha'i Faith, and should not. But on any
particular policy issue there are minorities and majorities. The place
of the "majority" is taken by Baha'i executive institutions. The place of
the "minority" is taken by Baha'is adversely affected by policies adopted
by those institutions.
There is a name for those regimes in which minorities are silenced once
the majority has spoken. It is totalitarianism.
In your view, must dissenting minorities be forever publicly silent in the
Baha'i Faith? If so, could it legitimately be characterized as a
totalitarian system? (My own answers are "no" and "no"; I do not see how
you would get to "yes" and "no.")
Sincerely, Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan
From TLCULHANE@aol.comTue Apr 9 11:24:19 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 02:48:02 -0400
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Religion - Science
Dear Stephen ,
I wil lhave to be brief this evening but will respond further after I
have had more time to ponder the significance of what you have said or at
least what i understand the significance to be.
Bohr/Einstein : the account of their disagreemments resulting in a
breakdown of communication is recounted byHermann Weyl of the Princeton
Institute of Advanced Studies where he held a reception for the two and
there was no communication . It is recounted among other things in _Science
, Order and Creativity_ by David Bohm and F. David Peat. pages 84-87.
Ya I understand Bohm is ignored by a great many physicists. My friends
here are , however very intrigued by his posthumous book _An Ontological
Interpretation of Quantum Theory_.
I would be inclined to say that the current world view of physics , like
all such worlds is a path resulting from certain choices made by physicists
rather than exhaustive of *reality* . i suspect you would agree. For
instance the argumeny has been made had De Broglie's view of quantum
mechanics been adopted rather than Bohr's the underlying unity or
interconectedness of things would be more apparent . The problem was not with
De Broglie's mathematics , the issue was the more reductionist world view
which Bohrs views reflected and was more consistent with the "times". I am
told by a couple of practicing physicists here that De Broglies mathematics
are actually more aesthetically pleasing .
I suppose what I am suggesting is that the current "world" of physics
represents what can be known about matter when a particular set of equations
are the basis for its exploration. It is the underlying vision of the
universe in all its manifestations which crreates the boundary conditions
within which reserach can be conducted . Alter that underlying vision and its
principles and , it seems to me , that you create new space for exploring
additional insights into the nature of matter . This vision of the Universe
as Cosmos as articulated by the Prophets constitues just such a shift. New
insights donr sem to eliminate older ones so much as restrict the range of
there explanatory power . As insights go richer and deeper the greater the
level of significance . For example . sending a spaceship and humans to the
moon was accomplished on the basis on Newtons physics . It did not require I
am told Einstein or Bohr . relativity and Quantam mechanics do not overthrow
earlier understandings - they simple point to there limitations . There is a
parallel here it seems to me in religion when Bahau llah speaks of the
"changeless faith of God." earlier statements of that faith are not
overthrown or negated , they are preserved and there limitations in the face
of our evolving understanding become clear .
Must go but I will close with one from Einstein and Eckart . " I maintain
that the cosmic rligious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for
scientific research." A. Einstein
" If the soul could have known God without the world , the world would not
have ben created." M. Eckart

So there are bridge builders between the known and the unknown. The
greatest of the bridge builders we call Prophets, and their companions the
scientists and the sages.
warm regards,
terry


From Brian_Murdoch@mindlink.bc.caTue Apr 9 11:26:06 1996
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 12:04:55 -0700
From: Brian Murdoch
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Diversity & Divisiveness - a newcomer's view
Friends;
As a recent subscriber to the list, I have been moved to share my response
to the recent (although I gather, periodic!) rash of apparently divisive
comment and innuendo on the list. However, my mind seems to work more
slowly than most of the regular contributors, and its taken me awhile to
clarify my thoughts. In all honesty, I have also had to take time to assess
my own emotional response to the growing number of accusations, and clarify
(and hopefully purify) my own motives in taking the time of the list
subscribers. I don't offer these thoughts, then, as a panacea, - just as
the fruits of my own review of the Writings, and of that more elusive
creature, my inner self.
Individual Interpretation
One of the statements of the Universal House of Justice (UHJ) that has had a
profound effect on me is that which is found on pages 88-9 of W of G. I
hope it is found by others to be helpful:
" A clear distinction is made in our Faith between authoritative
interpretation and the interpretation or understanding that each individual
arrives at for himself from his study of its teachings. While the former is
confined to the Guardian, the latter, according to the guidance given to us
by the Guardian himself, should by no means be suppressed. In fact such
individual interpretation is considered the fruit of man's rational power
and conducive to a better understanding of the teachings, provided that no
disputes or arguments arise among the friends and the individual himself
understands and makes it clear that his views are merely his own.
Individual interpretations continually change as one grows in comprehension
of the teachings."
While each of us individually must, then, assess whether we are simply
adding to the dispute by continuing a repetetive line of thought, this idea
is, in my experience of religious communities, a breath of fresh air! The
fact that two (or 102) Baha'is have differing understandings should not fill
us with fear, but with hope.
Scholarship
In its Naw Ruz message of 1979, the UHJ stated that "at the heart of all
activities, the spiritual, intellectual and community life of the believers
must be developed and fostered". This, and other, recognition of the
importance of the nurturing and development of Baha'i scholarship asks the
Baha'i community, it seems to me, to avoid, amongst other tendencies, two
prejudices: that of the more scholarly and educated among us to exercise
genuine humility and tolerance in their activies and speech; and that of
those not so well-educated (well-degreed?) to combat an insidious jealousy
or distrust of anything 'intellectual'.
Individual Freedom
The issue of individual rights has been raised explicitly and implicitly
numerous times over the past two weeks. Of great assistance to me in
thinking of the balance of this right of self expression referred to above
with the interest of the Cause was the lengthy letter of Dec. 29, 1988 from
the UHJ and addressed, interestingly enough, "To the Followers of
Baha'u'llah in the United States of America" [We here in Canada, however,
admit to having studied it?!]
The following words, in particular, seemed appropriate to the spirit of the
most recent postings on Talisman:
"Clearly, then, there is more to be considered than the critic's right to
self-expression; the unifying spirit of the Cause of God must also be
preserved, the authority of its laws and ordinances safeguarded, autority
being an indispensable aspect of freedom. Motive, manner, mode, become
relevant; but there is also the matter of love; love for one's fellows, love
for one's community, love for one's institutions.
"The responsibility resting on the individual to conduct himself in such a
way as to ensure the stability of society takes on elemental importance in
this context."
Given recourse to the Institutions, then, it strikes me as inappropriate to
use Talisman as a vehicle for raising allegations of unfaithfulness to the
Covenant. At the same time, those who repeatedly raise questions of
interpretation that have already been the subject of elucidation by the
Universal House of Justice, must consider their motives for doing so in a
public forum. While it has been pointed out that Talisman is not a 'Baha'i
list", it may be worth considering whether or not that fact increases the
need to exercise that wisdom of speech and an assessment of the timeliness
thereof that the House expounds upon in the balance of that letter to the
American Friends. In raising the question, I acknowledge that it is
inappropriate for me to make that judgement of others.
Please pardon the length of the posting. (Its a lot shorter than my first
draft!)
Brian Murdoch
Mission, B.C.
Canada
From bryan.graham@pembroke.oxford.ac.ukTue Apr 9 11:26:18 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 09:51:53 +0100 (BST)
From: Bryan Graham
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: TOO MANY MESSAGES
Dear List Members,
Am I the only individual who does not have time to read 60 long-winded
messages a day?
Bryan Graham
Pembroke College, Oxford
P.S. The above question is meant to be RHETORICAL! That is PLEASE do not
respond.
From M@upanet.uleth.caTue Apr 9 11:27:59 1996
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 01:57:51 -0600
From: M
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
Subject: Whew! t'sot in ere!
Holy Mack-er-al der lads - wada boat load a hot headed Yankees youse
guys are. I degree witches all though - - like ah caint countnance
violence eidder eh! And ah'll kick the liv'n bejeebers outa any one don't
see eye t' eye wit me on data count. An ah caint stand racism eidder -
specially when it comes from a bunch a damned arrogant white folks! an
ain't they all?! An if a man farteth in public his life shall he for fit -
that's wat ah say!
In more serious vein . . .
The sad irony of this recent outbreak of boo-hooing and nyaa-nyaaing
is that Arsalan's posting, the one which seems to have created the spark
that others are so intent on dousing with Naptha, was initially in response
to an item Alex Tavangar posted, which was a response to an item which I
posted in response to the gentleman who requested the text and source of the
quote by Abdul'l Baha re. "IF TWO SOULS QUARREL AND CONTEND . . . BOTH ARE
WRONG" etc. Please, re-read Arsalan's posting in the context of the
posting he was responding to. I infered that Arsalan, having pondered
those quotations in Alex's and my postings, was simply stating the dilema in
which he found himself.
1. He says he is "vehemently" opposed to certain statements made by
certain unnamed individuals, which he "believes" "challenge" or "undermine"
the convenant.
2. He asked, (in view of the quotes Alex and I had posted) -
"Should I remain silent?". (My response by the way, Arsalan, is "certainly
not! but state your passionately held views dispassionately" - (which is
not what I am about to do))

People, there is a world of difference between "reading/listening"
and "infering". It appears to me that in Arsalan's case there has been a
disproportionate amount of the later. Perhaps he could have been a little
more tactful in his phrasing but he certainly cannot be accused of indulging
in ad homoniem attacks, (certainly not comparable to the attacts being
launched against him) nor did he accuse any one of "breaking" the Covenant
of Baha'u'llah. To suggest that "believing" certain individuals are
"challenging" or "undermining" the convenant is the same as accusing those
individuals of "breaking" the covenant is more of an act of intellectual
intimidation as anything Arsalan put forth.
For what it's worth, I agree with Arsalan's perception. Over the
past month or so, for just one example, there has been an ongoing
discussion on the subject of Women on the House of Justice. On April 4th I
contributed to this tread and in that posting I refered to a letter from the
U.H.J. May 31, 1988; a letter which I posted in full the following day.
This letter, prompted by "a paper presented at a . . .Baha'i studies
conference which rais(ed) the possibility that the ineligibility of women
for membership on the UHJ may be a temporary provision", states quite
emphatically and unequivocally that the ineligibility of women on the U.H.J.
is "neither amenable to change nor subject to speculation about some
possible future condition." Refering to Abdu'l Baha's and Shogi Effendi's
interpretations on this matter, the House says they "are fundamental
statements of truth which cannot be varied through legislation by the
Universal House of Justice." The letter also states, with reference to the
gradual implementation of Baha'i law which permited women to serve in all
other capacities including as members of National and local Houses of
Justice (Spiritual Assemblies); "It is important to note that the timing of
the introduction of the provisions called for by the interpretations of
Abdu'l Baha and the Guardian in relation to the Local and National Spiritual
Assemblies, rather than constituting a response to some external condition
or pressure, was dictated by the principle of progressive implementation of
the laws, as enjoined by Baha'u'llah Himself."
There have been postings on Talisman which not only challenge but
reject the validity of the above claims, insist that the matter is
"amenable to change" and "subject" to speculation, suggest that the House of
Justice did not understand the language, context or intent of letters
written by Abdu'l Baha regarding woman on the House of Justice and advocate
lobbying the House of Justice on this and other policies which are perceived
by myopic mandarins to be politically incorrect.
I too find it quite inconvenient that this ruling/policy/law is "not
amenable to change" but I sincerely believe that Baha'i Scholars should be
searching out the wisdom and examining the significance & long term
implications of this policy rather than trying to prove the House wrong or
attempting to make apologies on it's behalf. There are clearly certain
individuals here with egos bigger than the Montana sky who feel that their
academic credentials carry more clout than the collective wisdom of all 9
members of the House of Justice.
It has been stated that Talisman is "not a Baha'i list" but rather a
"forum for scholarly discussion of the Bab'i and Baha'i teachings". I
submit that the most distinguishing feature of the Baha'i Faith is the
Covenant of Baha'u'llah and that it should be made the subject of scholarly
study, yet it sometimes seems that raising the subject of the Covenant on
Talisman is like bringing up sex education in public schools at a Republican
Convention.


G **************************************************************
Human depravity, then, has broken into fragments that which is by nature one
and simple; men try to grasp part of a thing which has no parts and so get
neither the part, which does not exist, nor the whole, which they do not
seek. (Boethius; the Consolation or Philosophy, 524 A.D.)
**************************************************************
From sfotos@gol.comTue Apr 9 11:28:25 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 20:05:46 +0900 (JST)
From: Sandra Fotos
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Sad and bad
Dear Talismans,
Returning to my pioneer post after a month and a half in the US, two
professional conferences and two wonderful Baha'i conferences, like
Cheshmak, I eagerly resubscribed to Talisman--only to find the subject
headings from hell appear on my screen. And their dismal contents lived up
to their titles.
We are approaching Ridvan and our national conventions. It's time for
prayers and for readying ourselves to embrace the new Plan and develop
appropriate ways for its implementation. Surely our energies should be
directed towards these ends rather than wasted on attacks, accusations,
defenses and counter moves.
I echo the plea for moderation in both language use and the thoughts which
underlie it--after all, there's no place like this list, is there? So let's
preserve it.
Sandy Fotos
Tokyo
***********************************
All that which ye potentially possess can,
however, be manifested only as a result of your
own volition.
Baha'u'llah
************************************
From 73043.1540@compuserve.comTue Apr 9 11:28:47 1996
Date: 09 Apr 96 08:13:16 EDT
From: John Dale <73043.1540@compuserve.com>
To: "\"H/C Reinstein\""
Cc: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: UHJ/Gender/Power gets off-the-wall
Dear Hannah,
Sorry to take so long to get back to you.
You wrote recently:
>>"What's at stake is the question of how can an infallible body receive
>>guidance to be morally inconsistent with its own fundamental principles?
>"Okay, enough already! I may be dense but I don't understand how you can say
>something like this. What are you talking about? Either the Universal House of
>Justice is infallible or it isn't. Is it sarcasm? I can accept that.
>Otherwise, cut to the chase. Are you saying that they made a mistake? Should
>they be politically correct perhaps? Should they adapt liberal American
>politics? Do they need stern lectures from the leaders of various women's'
>organizations to show them their horrid moral impurity? Who is guided by the
>Blessed Beauty, some future House but not this one because they're just
>beginners? What gives? Explain this to me. I don't get it. I don't get this
>whole thread. I don't. Call me dense. ...<
Hannah: here's how I see it about women not serving on the House of
Justice. And I'm sending this to you privately and maybe to one or two others
so as not to create the kind of needless emotionalism and hysteria over this
issue that so many people seem to exhibit and which makes rational learning
minimal and hot air maximal. Please try not to just brow-beat me into a
position, OK? Try to walk in my shoes and calmly point out where my error is,
so I can see it. This way, we can make progress.
OK, now, in essence the argument is going to go like this:
(1) We expect consistency from a system of ethical beliefs (the
notion of a system entails the notion of consistency).
(2) To state a principle and then to violate it is to be ethically
inconsistent, unless there is a more urgent ethical principle which intervenes
and justifies the violation.
(3) There is no apparent more urgent ethical principle which
intervenes and justifies the failure of the Baha'i Faith to live up to its
principle of the equality of men and women in relation to women not serving on
the House of Justice.
(4) Therefore the Baha'i Faith is ethically self-inconsistent, and
its infallibility cannot be maintained in an absolute sense. It may be more
infallible than any other actual institution, but it is not absolutely
infallible.
* * * * *
Let's look at the actual situation in more detail.
(1) We expect consistency within the Baha'i teachings, and it's clear
there is an inconsistency, at least on the surface, between (A) a principle of
spiritual equality between men and women and (B) the lack of women on the House
of Justice. One is forced logically to predict from the principle of equality
that men and women could and should serve equally on the UHJ, as they do in
every other Baha'i institution. This prediction is falsified, however, by the
lack of women on the UHJ. This inconsistency is not the kind of thing one would
expect. The inconsistency definitely appears to exist.
OK so far?
(2) This appearance of inconsistency is a serious problem in and of
itself, and it creates several further problems or apparent problems:
First, if there is one inconsistency in the Faith, do others also
exist? This inconsistency in a very powerful way simply and basically promotes
scepticism about the Faith, which is consistent with a general scepticism toward
religion in the secular public and with a specific scepticism towards the Baha'i
Faith by other religious faiths. Thus every segment of the non-Baha'i community
is motivated to pick up on and harp on this inconsistency and to try to find
other ones. And why shouldn't they? Here is our Faith, calling itself the Faith
of God, and yet appearing to be inconsistent. If principles espoused by the
Faith of God do not in fact accurately allow one to predict the real values and
behavior of the Faith, how is one to know what one is getting oneself into? How
do we know it's really from God? Inconsistency is a prima facie indicator of
error and of the falseness of a claim to be from God.
Second, if one inconsistency is OK, why not others? This is the
_value_ side of issue. If we allow one inconsistency, what is to prevent a
floodgate from opening? Again, how will we be able to predict actual behavior
if we say it is OK to have inconsistencies?
Three: this inconsistency is not just a minor thing. The UHJ is
a major symbol of the Faith. Every time one thinks about the Faith in a public
sense, one thinks of the UHJ, and of this inconsistency, which is part of the
UHJ by definition. The inconsistency is constantly in our face. Every new
believer who comes into the Faith will be tested by this inconsistency and by
its apparent illogicality.
Four: if women were indeed on the UHJ, that fact would be
sending a very strong, powerful positive signal to the women of the world to
take their proper place in society. It would, very arguably, help the cause of
women everywhere. Thus the Faith is not merely appearing to be inconsistent, it
is also and in reality foregoing a considerable positive benefit to itself and
to society by this inconsistency. Since women coming forward is vital to peace,
the cause of peace is damaged by this inconsistency.
Five: the inconsistency can do nothing but harm the Faith and its
reputation. Nobody is pointing to any positive benefits whatsoever that accrue
to the Faith through this inconsistency or through keeping women off the House
of Justice, except those who believe in menstrual pollution theories which
obviously cannot apply to all women anyway and which would equally apply to
national and local houses of justice. The menstrual pollution theory, even if
true, is thus also inconsistently applied.
So, one way or the other, there's an inconsistency, and the
inconsistency creates real problems, helps to keep real people out of the Faith
and mutes the Faith's ability to send a clear signal on the issue of women. By
every rational criterion, this is not some tiny laughing matter.
OK so far?
(3) Now, what TEXT is this inconsistency actually based on?
Lo and behold, it is not based on any actual specific, clear, and
unequivocal statement of Baha'u'llah but on His use of one word, "Rijal", which
usually means "males" and which Abdu'l-Baha INTERPRETS to mean males, but then
scholars point out that it can also mean "notables" including women and that
Baha'u'llah Himself specifically says that women in this era have reached the
level of "rijal". Scholars also point out that Abdu'l-Baha changed His mind and
at first kept women off of House of Justice in the West but then allowed them to
serve, undoubtedly because they agitated to do so and because He saw them as
capable of doing so whereas in the East women were suppressed and generally
uneducated. So Abdu'l-Baha's actual interpretation and response at least at the
level of local houses of justice seems to be linked to historical conditions and
to be progressive, in line with what the basic nature of the Faith is.
So, it is actually the rational alternatives to Abdu'l-Baha's
one-time interpretation and his own changing behavior, and NOT the explicit text
of Baha'u'llah (contrary to what Abdu'l-Baha says, by the way), that is creating
the current exclusion and the ambiguity over his ultimate intent, coupled with
the fact that neither Baha'u'llah nor Abdu'l-Baha is any longer physically alive
to answer further questions and to indicate to us absolutely clearly what their
real intent was, and whether it was to always and forever keep women off of the
House of Justice or whether they should be allowed to serve eventually based on
their increasing education and capacity in some sense.
It simply is not clear, in other words, what Baha'u'llah's and
Abdu'l-Baha's real, final intents on this issue were and whether it was to be
linked with historical development or not. Neither of them really said
explicitly that women were never ever ever to be on the Universal House of
Justice. So there is simply a real doubt about what they really intended.
OK so far?
(4) NOW IN ADDITION, Abdu'l-Baha has promised that "ERE LONG" the
reason why women are not on the House of Justice (either temporarily or
permanently, either as related to the Chicago house of justice or to the
general, future Universal House of Justice) "WILL BE AS CLEAR AS THE SUN AT HIGH
NOON". In other words, He has in his own mind a conscious knowledge of what it
is that justifies in His own mind the exemption or exclusion at that time and
which outweighs at that time the inconsistency with the equality principle. He
just doesn't apparently tell us what that reason is. This is true whether he is
referring to the local Chicago situation or to a general abstract situation
involving the future Universal House of Justice.
(A) Problem 1: Why was it ethical for Him not to tell us? He has
created a lot of problems for the Baha'i community by this action. If he knew
the reason, why did He not reveal it? What justified his not telling us the
reason? (If His statements referred to the local Chicago situation, one might
understand a desire to not mention specific personalities; but there is no such
constraint in relation to a future Universal House of Justice.)
(B) Problem 2: Abdu'l-Baha is apparently simply in error:
1) He had promised us that an answer would "ere long" become
clear.
2) 85 years later, no answer has become clear, either to the
local Chicago situation, if that is what he was referring to, or to the
Universal House situation.
3) He is therefore factually incorrect. There is simply no
apparent answer to WHY women are not on the Chicago or Universal House of
Justice which is as clear as the sun at high noon. There is also no way in the
Baha'i Community for any authoritative answer to be given. The Guardian
apparently made no commentary on why there were no women on the House (whichever
House Abdu'l-Baha was referring to), and the Universal House of Justice tells us
that it is not the recipient of revelation and that it does not know what the
reason is.
(C) Abdu'l-Baha's behavior thus becomes apparently both morally
and factually in error, and His absolute moral and factual infallibility thus
cannot logically be maintained.
(D) From this it follows that the absolute factual infallibility
of Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice, who have said that
Abdu'l-Baha was infallible, can also not be maintained. They were factually
wrong even if they spoke with infallibly good intent on the issue. Abdu'l-Baha
was not absolutely infallible. Therefore neither are they. WOOPS!
(E) In fact, however, a _relative_ concept of infallibility is in
line with the teaching of the Faith that religious truth is relative, and it is
_not_ in line with the relativity of religious truth to think that infallibility
is literally absolute both in fact and in purpose or intent. Thus there may be
no conflict with the doctrone of infallibility as long as that doctrine is seen
in a relative rather than absolute sense.
Do you follow me so far? If not, what exactly is unclear, or _where is
the error in logic_?
_____________
To restate, the dilemma is that any way we look at it, somebody has egg
on their face.
(A) EITHER the lack of women on the UHJ is genuinely inconsistent with
the principle of the equality of men and women and there is no rational
justification for it, which is unethical and not infallible, OR there IS an
answer and rational justification for it which outweighs all the negative side
effects of women's absence from the House and it's just that nobody can ever
claim to know authoritatively what it is, and that three infallible people or
institutions did not or cannot tell us what it is, which seems either negligent
or ridiculous.
(B) EITHER Abdu'l-Baha did not know the answer and said or implied that
He did, which would be a deception on His part; OR He knew the answer but did
not reveal it, for reasons He never explained, which inflicts an unsolved
mystery of great magnitude on the Faith of God and then leaves no way for
anybody to find a solution, which is negligent and incompatible with moral
infallibility and his duties to guide the Faith in the best way possible.
(C) Abdu'l-Baha said that the answer would "ere long" be as clear as the
sun at high noon. EITHER what He said is in some hidden way correct, OR he is
simply wrong. Under any reasonable interpretation of "ere long", what He said
is simply incorrect. It logically follows that his absolute factual
infallibility is incorrect.
(D) Thus statements by Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice
that Abdu'l-Baha was infallible are also incorrect, and they too are not
absolutely infallible.
That's the appearance of the situation at present, as far as I can tell,
Hannah. None of this contains any ill will on my part whatsoever against the
institutions of the Faith. It is simply what I see as the logical consequences
of the facts at hand and what I believe any other impartial onlooker would
perceive given those facts. I certainly invite comments on the logic of the
facts or presentation of other facts, but as far as I can tell, the doctrine of
the absolute infallibility of the central figures and institutions simply cannot
be maintained in front of the facts of this situation given the inconsistency
involved and the lack of any superceding higher ethical principle which
justifies the inconsistency.
Now my own little contribution to this big mess was to suggest that, hey,
look, the words "clear as the sun at high noon" are clearly used deliberately
and are not just an unconscious figure of speech. They refer specifically to
the Baha'i Revelation itself and/or to Baha'u'llah personally. Thus Abdu'l-Baha
is saying ere long the answer will be as clear as "Baha'u'llah". So either He
means that ere long the answer will be as clear as the fact that Baha'u'llah
simply _said_ that the UHJ is all men, period, (which is actually Abdu'l-Baha's
own interpretation of Baha'u'llah's words) or He means that the 9-males
character of the House represents, depicts, symbolizes Baha'u'llah and His
special protection and guidance of the House of Justice.
Now, if this latter interpretation were true, it would clear up a lot of
difficulties in one fell swoop. In fact, the "answer" has been in front of us
all the time in Abdu'l-Baha's own words, and we were simply not seeing it. The
"reason" is as clear as "the sun at high noon", that is, as clear as
"Baha'u''llah."
This puts the male gender in the same category as the number 9. There is
no literal, physical reason for the number 9. It simply represents "the number
of Baha", i.e., Baha'u'llah. In the same way, the male gender represents
Baha'u'llah. Furthermore, we know that the number can be changed, and that if
it is more than 9 "it does not matter." By extrapolation, if women are added as
"rijal", as the word permits and as Baha'u'llah has said that women have reached
this station, it does not matter.
That's my own best solution to the problem as it relates to the situation
of the Universal House of Justice. It still leaves certain questions unanswered,
but it does relieve the situation somewhat. However, other people think the
symbol theory does not add much or make sense, I'm not quite sure why.
So, the current law is what it is, and I believe it can be changed by the
House, and I hope that the House changes it and brings the situation into line
with the best interests of women and of the Faith itself based on the
progressive nature of the Faith of God, which is the absolute foundation of the
Baha'i Faith.
I hope this helps to clarify where I currently stand, based on the best
reasoning and facts that I currently have, and I invite your own clarifications.
Yours truly,
John Dale
From 73043.1540@compuserve.comTue Apr 9 11:28:58 1996
Date: 09 Apr 96 08:14:10 EDT
From: John Dale <73043.1540@compuserve.com>
To: BAHA'I-TALISMAN-LIST
Subject: Sacred Dances
Dear Philip,
Again, please check your formatting function. Your posts are very
difficult for me to read because your lines exceed 80 columns or 85 or whatever
the standard is. I don't know if others experience the same problem, but yours
is the only post that does this on my system so I think the problem lies in your
system.
In relation to the kind of dancing you mention, you're much more the
expert on their spirituality than I am, since you practice and perform them, but
in my view, most dancing that goes
There is little is any conscious three-centered work being done. This kind of
inner work has to be taught and requires a very specific act of self-conscious
voluntary attention and intent. It is not the kind of attention that "happens"
in life. It occurs only by the deliberate specific act that creates it.
From a003@lehigh.eduTue Apr 9 11:29:06 1996
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 08:19:10 EDT
From: a003@lehigh.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Male Initiation Ceremonies
Dear sweet Talismanians:
A non-Baha'i friend here in Pennsylvania has a sixteen year old son he
wishes to "initiate" into manhood. (It's something that getting a driver's
license doesn't quite accomplish.) Also, for that matter, many in the
Baha'i community here are interested in celebrating the coming of age of
children, male and female. Many of us have been looking to Native
American ceremonies, moderately undertaken, to be very meaningful, not
feeling that baptism or barmitzvah's (sp???) are quite right.
I know there are no rituals in the Cause, but...I would appreciate any
stories of ceremonies that have been successful. Not too long ago, the
Local Spiritual Assembly publicly acknowledged a group of recently mature
Baha'i Youth by praising them, and giving them each a rose. It was
pretty, both male and female were treated in the same way.
There is a need here and we are broken winged birds. If anyone has really
flown in this arena, I'd appreciate a description of the wings.
With love,
Bill
*-----------------------------------------------------------*
* Phone:610-867-9251 William George *
* Theatre Artist *
* 908 E. 5th. St. *
* Bethlehem, Pa 18015 U.S.A. *
*___________________________________________________________*
From mansouri@bwc.orgTue Apr 9 11:33:17 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 16:15:36 IDT
From: Shohreh Mansouri
To: a003@lehigh.edu
Cc: talisman
Subject: Re:Male Initiation Ceremonies
Dear Friends,
I don't think we Baha'is are afraid of rituals;
it is just that we have very few of them in the Faith.
For instance, we don't sprinkle water and recite a liturgy
over the head of a baby (baptism) to "give" it to God.
It was only a symbol anyway, but the symbols have become
crystallized and the spirit behind them has long gone.
So we're left with all the ritual and have even forgotten
what it originally stood for.
Don't know about "Rites of Passage",
but the human race is now coming into
its maturity and we may not need customs
which we once had in our childhood
and youth.
We don't have these "coming of age" rituals
in the Faith - we have outgrown those things.
It seems to me we need to spend our time getting on
with the business of life - transform ourselves and
teach the Cause.
Just my humble opinion on this.
From a003@lehigh.eduTue Apr 9 11:36:58 1996
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 11:26:18 EDT
From: a003@lehigh.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Male Initiation Rites
Wow. Sohreh's response that we've outgrown any need for rite of passage
ceremonies is stunning. Are there others who feel that way?
Eager to hear more,
Bill
*-----------------------------------------------------------*
* Phone:610-867-9251 William George *
* Theatre Artist *
* 908 E. 5th. St. *
* Bethlehem, Pa 18015 U.S.A. *
*___________________________________________________________*
From jwalbrid@indiana.eduTue Apr 9 12:10:00 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 07:55:07 -0800
From: jwalbrid
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: New and Improved Baha'i Faith
Dear List Owner,
I resent very much you characterizing me as being obnoxious. This is simply
intolerable. I demand an apology from you as the list owner for singling one
person out who indeed has not attacked anyone and simply states his opinion
and has said so. You should be ashamed of yourself. Who gives you the right
to insult members of this group with no basis just because you have been
getting complaints? You have elevated unfairness and character assassination
to an art form.
Arsalan
You are being obnoxious, and I have been getting complaints. Please cool it.
John Walbridge
List Owner
Talisman
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comTue Apr 9 12:10:34 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 08:47:55 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: Institutes
---- My dear Mark
Great idea we could arrange that the physical meeting is held at Bosch
which would give a Baha'i atmosphere access to a large library and many
other features at a low cost.Let me know and I will do what I can to
help.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
In bahai-st today:
Beloved ones -
With the new stage in the unfoldment of `Abdu'l-Baha's _Tablets of the
Divine Plan_ and "the Minor Plan of God" almost upon us, does anyone
have
any thoughts on the establishment of Baha'i institutes, which is a
focus of
the new Plan, and how these can relate to Baha'i studies, deepening,
and
scholarship?
I conceive of this list, along with the others I operate, as projects
of the
Reality Sciences Institute I have started (and will, as soon as I can
find
the time, begin holding meetings at a physical site). It seems to me
that
this approach to computer telecommunications is consonant with a view
of
institutes as "centers of learning."
Has anyone here given any consideration to establishing an institute -
physical, virtual, etc.? If so, what will be its focus?
If the Baha'i Studies list can function as the "flagship" list of the
Reality Sciences Institute, what subjects would you suggest we now
consult on?
-
To switch to the digested list,
send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message
body
-
unsubscribe bahai-st
subscribe bahai-st-digest
end
From nineteen@onramp.netTue Apr 9 12:11:45 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 10:00:04 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Juan Cole , Arsalan Sadighi
Cc: Talisman
Subject: Re: Defamation
> If I were conducting a seminar at the University of Michigan, and any
>of the students behaved as Arsalan has on this net, I would
>unhesitatingly expel that student from my class.
Dear Juan,
I feel you WOULD be MORE patient and kindly than you claim here with a
student in one of your seminars. I have always felt that Proffessors
were too dictatorial and powerful anyway. They hold a students life in
their hands. But then again I'm a product of the '60's.
It WAS perhaps unwise for Arsalan to voice thoughts that many hold but
refrain from expressing. Truely, we are not aware of another's condition
and relationship with Baha'u'llah. On the other hand, I find it
unfortunate that voices are rarely raised (by those with moral authority
such as yourself when the hurling of hurtful epithets by your admirers
takes place) over the pummeling that some of friends recieve at the hands
of their detractors. I only hear a lot of feeble excuses akin to: :
"They did it first", or "They did it too.". In my estimate we all need
to re-evaluate our conduct and grow from our mistakes, not pretend we
didn't make them and go into the *hardened denial mode*.
Tolerance is a two way street, and it would only seem just, I would
suggest, that we deal even-handedly with our adherents and opponents
alike. Just because someone is like-minded doesn't mean we have to
ignore rash statements from such individuals.
I hope the honored Proffesor would ALSO caution those of his students (in
this hypothetical seminar) who attack another, like what happened to
Arsalan; and also try and understand what actuated his remarks.
I find it troubling that you would suggest Arsalan be dismissed, if even
hypothetically, on SPEECH grounds. I hope I misunderstand what you are
saying. But it is all the more troubling that you give the university
setting for your analogy.
I remember quite well the "Free Speech Movement" on the Berkeley campus.
It was not intended as free speech only for those who expressed
sentiments we find acceptable. Haven't we decided that free speech must
be allowed? Your seemingly suppressive remarks concern me as a former
academic. Even if Arsalan was completely wrong in his
outspokenness--would one want to silence articulate discourse? His
thoughts one might have found abhorent but his behavior was essential
restrained. The suggestion that he may need to resign, I believe, will
only cause others to reconsider the value of their membership on this
list.
Richard
Richard C. Logan nineteen@onramp.net
Maintain HomePage "The Baha'is of Lubbock"
http://rampages.onramp.net/~nineteen/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the
appointed time is come! Even as it has been said:
"Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can
everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every
timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who
hear it." --Gleanings from the writings of Baha'u'llah
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From asadighi@ptialaska.netTue Apr 9 12:48:47 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 08:21:12 -0800
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: LIST OWNER
Dear List Owner,
I resent very much you characterizing me as being obnoxious. This is simply
intolerable. I demand an apology from you as the list owner for singling one
person out who indeed has not attacked anyone and simply states his opinion
and has said so. You should be ashamed of yourself. Who gives you the right
to insult members of this group with no basis just because you have been
getting complaints? You have elevated unfairness and character assassination
to an art form.
Arsalan
LIST OWNER WROTE:
You are being obnoxious, and I have been getting complaints. Please cool it.
John Walbridge
List Owner
Talisman
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes
From sscholl@jeffnet.orgTue Apr 9 12:49:36 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 21:19:52 +0100
From: White Cloud Press
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: New and Improved Baha'i Faith
Dear Arslan,
Forgive me, but I do not catch the drift of where you are going with these
questions as they relate to my post, so I will refrain from saying anything
else. Well, except for one small thing. I want it to be perfectly clear to
all that Arslan's attempt to hijack my post by including it in total in his
response and then outlawing any citation of any part of his post is
something I object to in the strongest terms. Anyone should feel free to
copy my post to their hearts content and send it to their friends and loved
ones. Consider its use as a talisman, bringing good fortune and good
health. Enrshined within all of my posts are secret kabalistic phrases that
can only be deciphered by the truly elite among us. Each phrase contains a
hidden secret, usually based on Babi numerology, and the numbers have been
proven over and over again to be the winning lottery numbers in California.
This, of course, is a test of the faithful, since we are forbidden to
gamble. The choice is yours though. Read my words for their inner meaning
and find true wealth.
Your true pen pal,
Steve
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Apr 9 12:53:43 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 12:48:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: "Richard C. Logan"
Cc: Arsalan Sadighi ,
Talisman
Subject: Re: Defamation
Richard:
You have raised free speech issues, and I am happy to address them.
Critics of liberal and human rights have long pointed out the paradox
that freedom of speech is impossible without restraints on speech.
Marxists (they should talk) such as Marcuse and others saw this as a
fatal flaw in parliamentary democracy. More recently, Islamists have
adopted a similar line of attack (again, given the state of human rights
in Iran, Sudan, Libya and Saudi Arabia, they should talk).
As I have gotten older and seen more of the world, as I have been myself
subject as a journalist and then academic to state censorship, as I have
contemplated the sorts of society critics of parliamentary democracy have
created, I have been less and less impressed with the radical critique of
freedom of speach in parliamentary societies.
Let us review the sorts of boundaries on speech that make freedom of
speech possible:
1) You cannot have freedom of speech when someone can
freely yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. This is because the result of
this action will likely be a stampede in which lives are lost.
2) You cannot have freedom of speech that allows private individuals to
be libelled with impunity. Libel is defined as knowingly publishing a
falsehood about someone that has the effect of harming his or her reputation.
3) You cannot have freedom of speech that involves inciting people to
violence such that there is a clear and present danger of such violence
as a result of the incitement.
I am untroubled by the fact that these sorts of constraints on freedom of
speech are necessary to the establishment of freedom of speech. 60s
"Free Speech" advocates who wanted the right to incite students to trash
buildings were in the wrong. The resulting violence at the 1968
Democratic Convention fatally weakened the Democratic party and opened
the way for a half-century of Republican dominance, exactly the opposite
result the radicals were aiming for. I marched against the War, as a
pacifist, and was a conscientious objector. But I never committed or
advocated committing violence. Marcuse is full of it.
There is one more thing we have found. Theocratic, dogma-ridden sorts of
speech interfere with science and free inquiry and are incompatible with
solid research. It is my duty as a historian to study things like the
evolution of the Baha'i stance on the position of women, which has
changed over time and not been monolithic. As a historian, I cannot let
the answers I find be dictated by dogma, from whatever source it may
emanate. In the Baha'i context, it is impossible to conduct such
researches in an atmosphere in which some persons are constantly invoking
the Covenant to close the discussion down. We all know that yelling the
word "Covenant-breaker" in a Baha'i chatroom is the mental equivalent to
yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It disrupts reasoned discourse and
makes scientific inquiry impossible.
To Richard Logan:
First of all, the analogy to a seminar class is not far-fetched. We are
in an open classroom of Indiana University. This discussion is an
experiment in group learning, where there are no professors or
students--sort of equivalent to a subject-specific discussion group.
There are no constraints on our discourse save those imposed by the
Indiana state constitution and the codes of conduct of Indiana
University. But among those constraints is the separation of religion
and state, and the need to refrain from labelling individuals
pejoratively because of their religious beliefs.
I conduct research seminars for advanced History and
Middle East students who pay tuition to take courses with me. Were an
individual to disrupt the seminar by shouting "heresy" at the other
students, making a dispassionate examination of the issues impossible, I
would have a duty to the tuition-paying students who were there to study
and learn to expel the disruptive student. (A statement such as,
"academic study of Islam makes me uncomfortable as a believing Muslim"
would not elicit this reaction from me; but for a student to round on the
others and shout "there is a cabal in this seminar of persons who wish to
undermine the Islamic faith by their constant subjection of it to
reasoned scrutiny, and they are infidels, whom I must denounce!" would
require me to take some action.) As I say, I am untroubled by
the paradox that free speech can only exist in conditions of bounded
speech. The critics of free speech who allow themselves to become
mesmerized by this paradox only end up becoming followers of the
Mussolinis, Stalins and Khomeinis.
cheers Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comTue Apr 9 13:36:19 1996
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 96 09:53:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: minority view
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Dear Juan,
Actually, I don't know of any Text that accord those opposing a
pronounced policy the right to publicly voice their dissenting
views in the Faith. In fact, one could list many statements
saying exactly opposite, (e.g. once the majority has ruled on an
Assembly the rest must rally around that decision, etc.) It
seems that unity of the community is more important than any
policy decision.
Therefore, I don't see any segment of Baha'i community, whether
minority or majority, having the right to *publicly* voice their
dissenting views. The right that they have is the appeal
process.
Having said this, I do think its perfectly alright to continue
research on a particular issue which an Institutions has already
ruled and there is nothing in the Writings prohibiting such
research activities. For example, in the case of the issue of
the women on the House, even though I happen to firmly believe
Baha'u'llah never intended for women to serve on the Universal
House of Justice and that they never will, I support continual
research in this area as we're becoming enlightened about many
other interesting aspects of our history and Writings.
I am also of the view that Talisman is a private list dedicated
to research in Babi/Baha'i Faiths. As such, I for one support
and enjoy such research discussions on this forum.
The question of women on the House, in my view, is the Baha'i
version of the Fermat's Last Theorem. Much the same that solving
Fermat's equation doesn't add to a hill of beans, in an effort to
solve that problem many new branches of mathematics such as field
theory, group theory, etc., came into existence. So, by all
means, research away. Great discoveries await us.
regards, ahang.
From asadighi@ptialaska.netTue Apr 9 13:36:55 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 09:03:14 -0800
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Take you turns please!
Dear Friends or Foes in This Case,
I am sorry but I cannot respond to all your attacks at once. I suggest you
exercise some restraint and patience until your turn arrives. I don't have
all the time in the world to respond to your 'kind' remarks so you will have
to wait. And Ahang, you had better take a nice warm glass of milk at night
so you don't stay up waiting and wondering.
I find it very ironic that nobody has taken my suggestion to refer this
matter to the House of Justice seriously. I can see there is much more
interest in protecting the 'turf' than to resolve the issues confronting us all.
Having read the recent remarks by the List Owner, I feel my time is running
out on this list. I will miss you all and wish you the best.
Arsalan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes
From asadighi@ptialaska.netTue Apr 9 13:37:12 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 09:07:07 -0800
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Instance # 1
Instance # 1.
I consider to be a direct challenge to the Covenant, respectfully or not.
Arsalan
> So, my view of the Covenant allows for complete intellectual freedom and
>freedom of speech--yes, even freedom to contradict the Center of the Faith,
>if one does so respectfully--without fear......
>
>Warmest,
>Tony
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes
From asadighi@ptialaska.netTue Apr 9 13:37:50 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 09:21:25 -0800
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: INSTANCE # 2
INSTANCE # 2
This was a letter posted by the List Owner himself, by mistake. This is
abhorrent. Who is he addressing this letter to? He tried to backpedal but
you be the judge.
I consider this to be a very determined effort to undermine the authority of
the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States, using threats, and
creating mischief.
Who are the scoundrels? Maybe the members of the National Assembly and the
House? I don't know, but it leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth.
It is quite clear from this letter that a lot of thought has been given to
planning and executing a plan against the National Spiritual Assembly where
Mr. Walbridge is responding to one by one. I would have loved to see the
original proposal. If this is not a challenge I don't know what is.
Originally, I said I believed there was subgroup on Talisman intent on
advancing their own agendas. I stand by what I said. This seems like a war
against the freely and democratically elected members of a senior
institution of the Faith. Go figure?
It is interesting that the mischief makers are ready to 'stand their ground
and make trouble' but they are ready to snuff the life out of anyone who
does not agree with their hidden, and perhaps not so hidden, agendas.
I think the letter is pretty self explanatory and shameful.
Arsalan
>
>Gentlemen and lady:
>
>I really must--uncharacteristically--agree with my good wife.
>
>1. *Any* sort of an organization is an absolute nonstarter at this
>point. That is the one thing that will not in any way be tolerated.
>There is a clear precedent in the Guardian's handling of the New History
>Society. It will just get us all thrown out on our ears, force the
>decent people to back the scoundrels, and in all likely push the Faith
>back into the intellectual ghetto, much like happened after the expulsion
>of Sohrab. Let's forget it and erase the messages suggesting it.
>
>2. Ditto *Modest Proposal II*. It didn't work last time and it won't
>work this time. It will just polarize the situation.
>
>3. Ditto direct attacks on individuals. Leave them to dig their own
>graves; they have, after all, staff to help them. Attacks on members of
>the NSA by organized or perceived-to-be-organized agitators, particularly
>members of the notorious ex-West LA crowd, will force the House to rally
>to the defence of the NSA.
>
>4. Let us remember that we have won three rounds recently: Talisman was
>not strangled in its cradle; the NSA seems to have backed down on
>attacking David--according to rumor because they feared that Indiana
>University would sue them, I am gratified to say; and the NSA is standing
>its ground against the House on the issue of the Baha'i encyclopedia.
>
>5. We have hit on a winning strategy, I think:
> a) Avoid direct confrontations whenever possible.
> b) If attacked, as in David's case, indicate that we are prepared
>to stand our ground and make trouble.
> c) Get information and ideas into circulation.
> d) Keep the heat on whenever it can be done without direct confrontations.
> e) Do not allow ourselves to be painted as bad Baha's.
> f) Give the powers-that-be a graceful way out of their problems.
>
>They're starting to eat their horses inside the fortress; let's stay
>safely in the trenches and not jump up and charge the cannons. This
>means that we need to keep doing what we are doing: no committees,
>manifestos, or unnecessary martyrs. In particular, now is the time to
>lay on earnest charm.
>
>And, Nima, as for you, I do not want any more of these inflammatory
>statements. You have no independent clout yet apart from whatever your
>family connections might be, and we will need you for the next
>generation's fights. There is no point in your getting thrown out now.
>So lay off the manifesto-making and work on your Arabic verb tables, or I
>will drop you from Talisman. What is the 8th form feminine plural
>imperative of Q-R-B?
>
>john walbridge
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes
From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduTue Apr 9 13:40:36 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 12:21:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: talisman
Subject: letters/etc.
First, let me assure Derek that I have read The Dispensation... a number of
times. Indeed, I am sufficiently antiquated that it was one of the things I
read before declaring. Nevertheless, his references to it are still beside
the point.
According to the letter, the question being addressed is not about the House
or its prerogatives, the question is the one "the Auckland Assembly has asked
about vivisection." And the answer given to that question is not correct.
There was a recent suggestion on this list that more subject compilations
were needed. If one set out to make a subject compliation for which one
needed material on vivisection, the index of Arohanui (which volume is also
included in Refer) would lead one to this letter and the statement "there is
nothing on this subject in the Baha'i teachings." One would be likely to
include that statement in the compilation and it would not be correct.
If one had a seeker who was interested in the subject of vivisection and one
used the indexes to Guardian's letters and found the statement "there is
nothing on this subject on the Baha'i teachings" and gave that to the seeker,
the information one would be giving a searching soul would not be correct.
If the House planned a statement on the ethics of biomedical research and
used as the key text the quote from this letter and then proceeded to lay out
a 'Baha'i' position on the topic based on extrapolation from statements not
directly about the subject as "there is nothing on this subject in the Baha'i
teachings," then the statement would be premised on a position which is not
correct.
This is not just a technicality. The statement in the letter is wrong.
Despite the couple of disclaimers to the contrary that have been posted,
there are _many_ Baha'is who regularly take the position Shoghi Effendi said
such and such (whether in his hand, a letter on behalf of, or even God Passes
By) and that settles the matter.
Further, it is not only that the statement is wrong, but that it objectively
confirms that Shoghi Effendi did not have access to or knowledge of the full
corpus of the writings. (This can be inferred from various statements of
his, but the important thing here is that it is objectively demonstrable and
not dependent on personal interpretation of a statement.)
Now if it is demonstrable in this case (as it is in others) that Shoghi
Effendi did not have access to the full corpus, then what are the
implications for situations where he makes a statement about the content of
the "teachings"? Can it be argued that an interpretation includes texts
unknown to the interpreter? Do we need to (a) identify an actual text which
is being interpreted, and (b) determine if there are other texts that were
not taken into account (e.g. if that were the case, perhaps the
interpretation would apply to the known text but not be an adequate statement
of a full Baha'i position; or the interpretation could apply to the known
text but that text itself have been superceded by a later text or texts.)
These are serious questions of the type serious religions have to address
about textual authorities if they expect to be taken seriously. And they are
certainly questions that will quickly come up if scholars of religion do give
serious attention to the faith.
I believe it is a good idea if we work on such questions ourselves and that
is is a responsibility of those scholars who are Baha'is to do so, because if
we do not there is a considerable likelihood of a lot of sincere, spiritual,
and naive Baha'is out there being blindsided by regular scholars who would
not need to have any animosity toward the faith to do so.
There is also a considerable current danger of the situation getting worse as
the use of such 'aids' as Refer narrows the material being used into a de
facto canon that is extremely selective (not in any thought out or sinister
way, but largely by accident). This could repeat on a greater scale the
1930s through 1950s problem of incestuously related compilations drawing one
upon the other and progressively winnowing down the range of material that is
actually known and used.
Not long ago, there were a number of suggestions om this list about the need
for more publiction of and access to texts and there was a very silly comment
that we didn't need more until we properly understand what we have got. I'm
afraid it just doesn't work like that.
In order to understand a corpus of textual material one has to have access to
the _whole_ corpus because it exists as a whole not as atomized pieces that
are independently digestible. And to work with the whole one has to
determine how the pieces interconnect and interrelate. This means one has to
have methodologies that lead to consistently meaningful results. We need
them. We haven't got them. If we don't get them, should the faith actually
occasion interest in the world at large we will lose the study of the text to
those who will develop them.
The revelation is is a gift to and a resource for all humanity. If the
Baha'is won't go to the trouble of actually working with it, maybe somebody
else will.
Jackson
From gec@geoenv.comTue Apr 9 13:41:26 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 13:30:59 -0400
From: Alex Tavangar
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Male Initiation Rites
At 11:26 AM 4/9/96 EDT, Bill wrote:
>Wow. Sohreh's response that we've outgrown any need for rite of passage
>ceremonies is stunning. Are there others who feel that way?
> Eager to hear more,
> Bill
As always, reality has infinite and equally valid vantage points (as opposed
to a coin with only two sides).
My inner feeling (not arrived at through detailed scholastic examination)
has been that in this contingent world outward symbols of inner/spiritual
realities can play a useful role in maintaining a certain level of cohesion
within the global society while acting as anchoring and reinforcing
mechanisms for individuals (female and male) as well as societies.
Rites of passage, initiation ceremonies, etc. can potentially play such a
role. However, a great deal of forethought must precede the adopting of such
symbols as they can have a deep and long lasting effect on the participants
and the rest of the society. Rites of passage, initiation ceremonies by
nature (and definition?) must point the individual in the direction of the
kind of ideal society that we would like to live in and the value system
that will foster the realization of such a social environment.
In an anthropology course in college some years ago we read about one such
rite of passage among the Lakota indians for their young male/warriors. In
this symbolic procedure, young warriors who were considered to be ready to
advance to the next level of recognition within the tribe were selected to
have the privilege of hunting for the aged and unable/disabled members of
the tribe. In this extremely useful symbolic act, able bodied and
potentially arrogant young males (and everyone else) were taught an
important lesson in service and humility while the weak were provided with
their sustenance through the winter months.
Now since defining the kind of ideal society that we would like to live in
and the value system that will foster the realization of such a social
environment can be illusive targets in today's global society, the task of
creating the appropriate rites of passage that are unifying and conducive to
love and humility (if these are in fact qualities that one wants to foster)
can be very challenging. We must keep in mind that, IMO, such symbolic acts
are most effective when they organically grow out of the ethical fabric of
the society and are not artificial. It is also my view that nothing.,
including our involvement and preoccupation with symbols, etc. should be
allowed to interfere with our quest for realizing our true self as expounded
by Baha'u'llah.
" O SON OF SPIRIT! There is no peace for thee save by renouncing thyself and
turning unto Me; for it behooveth thee to glory in My name, not in thine
own; to put thy trust in Me and not in thyself, since I desire to be loved
alone and above all that is. "
(Arabic Hidden Words, no. 8)
" O SON OF BEING! My love is My stronghold; he that entereth therein is safe
and secure, and he that turneth away shall surely stray and perish. "
(Arabic Hidden Words, no. 9)
Of course it can be argued that the above discussion of rites of passage
unnecessarily complicates the whole issue. This view again can be valid as
any other interpretation of reality!
" For every thing, however, God has created a sign and symbol, and
established standards and tests by which it may be known. The spiritually
learned must be characterized by both inward and outward perfections..."
Abd'u'l-Baha
(Secret of Divine Civilization, page 33)
Best Regards,
Alex B. Tavangar
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Apr 9 13:52:40 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 13:36:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Ahang Rabbani
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: minority view
Ahang:
There wafts from your posting the delightful fragrance of an open and
incisive mind, and I am grateful to you for it.
I'd like to take this opportunity to reply, not to you, but to others
with more narrow views of freedom of speech in the community. There are a
number of ideas about the treatment of minorities in
the Baha'i faith that seem to me to need more interrogation.
First, people keep hauling out Shoghi Effendi's statement that the Baha'i
faith is not a pure democracy because elected officials are bound only by
their consciences, not by the will of the majority.
This passage is consistently misunderstood by Baha'is as legitimating a
sort of Leninist dictatorship by Baha'i assemblies. In fact, in
classical political theory there were three good kinds of government,
each of which had an undesirable form in which it went bad. Thus,
monarchy is good, despotism is bad. The good form of representative rule
was called "republicanism," and its bad form was "democracy." A
"republican" regime was one in which virtuous elected delegates ruled
according to their consciences and protected the rights of all.
"Democracy" was what we would now call populist demagoguery, it was a
from of government in which there was a tyranny of the majority and the
minority was persecuted.
Shoghi Effendi studied classical political theory at Oxford, and was
using these words in precise ways. When he said the Baha'i faith was not
a democracy, he was paying it a compliment--it is not a populist
demogogic regime that allows a tyranny of the majority and a cynical
bowing to the whims of the moment by elected officials. Shoghi Effendi
did *not* mean to say that the Baha'i system was not a republic (the good
form of representative government), which it clearly is; indeed, with the
end of the Guardianship it has become a pure republic.
Contemporary Baha'is have twisted around the Guardian's concerns so as to
make the Faith into some sort of elective dictatorship (the opposite of
the contemporary meaning of "democracy," which has come to mean what
republicanism once did) and so as to *deny* the rights of minorities--even
though the intent of the Guardian in denouncing democracy (in the
bad sense of the term) was to *protect* the rights of minorities! The
Guardian also did use the word "democracy" in its more contemporary, good
sense, as when he said that the Baha'i faith is "democratic in its
methods." He did not in that passage mean it was *demogogic in its methods*.
Attention to what words mean in their precise historical contexts is
absolutely key to understanding the Writings.
As for pulling behind the Assembly when a decision has been made, surely
there must be a time limit on this? And surely it must depend on the
type of decision? Otherwise, a year later it would still be impossible
for someone to criticize a policy that had been adopted and proved a
disaster. The idea that the assembly itself would recognize the disaster
has not always been borne out; people become attached to their pet projects.
There is, of course, ample evidence that `Abdu'l-Baha advocated free
speech for dissident minorities:
Traveller's Narrative, Wilmette edn.:
"But when the custom of interference with the creeds of all sects arose
and the principle of inquiring into men's thoughts became the fashion and
practice, the extensive dominions of the empire of Persia diminished . . ."
(p. 89)
"But if we desire to put in force the sentence of the doctors of religion
no one will escape fetters and chains and the keenness of the sword, for
in Persia, apart from this sect, there exist diverse sects . . . each one
of whom regards the other as infidels and accuses them of crime. Under
these circumstances what need that the government should persecute this
one or that one, *or disturb itself about the ideas and consciences of
its subjects and people?" (pp. 89-90)
"In all countries such actions hinder development and progress, and cause
decline and deterioration. Of the violent agitation which has befallen
the supports of Oriental government the chief cause and principal factor
are in truth *these laws and habits of interference* [contrasts Iranian
theocracy with British freedom of religion and conscience, which he links
to the greatness of the British empire]" p. 90
Praises British "just laws, freedom of conscience, and uniform dealing
and equity towards all nationalities" p. 90
"As regards religious zeal and true piety, their touchstone and proof are
firmness and steadfastness in noble qualities, virtues and perfections,
which are the greatest blessings of the human race; but not interference
with the belief of this one or that one, demolition of edifices, and
cutting off of the human race." P. 90
Abdu'l-Baha's characterization of the theocratic European Middle Ages:
"Night and day all parties were slaves to apprehension and disquietude;
civilization was utterly destroyed . . . but the influence and power of
the heads of religion and monks were in all parts complete. But when
they [the Europeans of the Enlightenment] removed these differences,
persecution and bigotries out of their midst, and proclaimed the equal
rights of all subjects and the liberty of men's consciences, the lights
of glory and power arose . . ." (p. 91)
"These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is
sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening of
ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of the
secrets of creation [through science], and manifestation of the hidden
verities of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of
conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and the
soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for man
in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection?
convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the
King of Kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the
fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants. So in
the world of existence two persons unanimous in all grades [of thought] and
beliefs cannot be found." (p. 91).
And, of course, there is the famous passage of `Abdu'l-Baha in the West,
which Baha'is go out of their way to avoid contemplating or implementing:
At the Central Congregational Church in Brooklyn on 16 June 1912, he
said: "Just as in the
world of politics there is need for free thought, likewise in the world
of religion there should
be the right of unrestricted individual belief. Consider what a vast
difference exists between
modern democracy and the old forms of despotism. Under an autocratic
government the
opinions of men are not free, and development is stifled, whereas in a
democracy, because
thought and speech are not restricted, the greatest progress is
witnessed. It is likewise true in
the world of religion. When freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and
right of speech
prevail--that is to say, when every man according to his own idealization
may give expression
to his beliefs--development and growth are inevitable." (PUP).
Add all this to the beloved Guadian's guarantee to each Baha'i of the
right to express his views and declare his conscience, and the true
stance of the Baha'i faith on minority rights of expression becomes
increasingly clear.
cheers Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comTue Apr 9 15:04:52 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 11:08:38 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: letters/etc.
My dear Jackson
Clearly we both are geriatic as one had to read the Will and Testament
before being allowed to enroll in my time as well.Maybe
biscuits or hot buttered toasted crumpets and hot
chocolate by the fire for both of us. As we debate the issue with
shawls around us to keep one cosy.
The point I will keep making is that the Guardian was aware of the
different role He had to fulfill in the Faith to the House.Items like
vivisection , birth control and the like are to do with the day to day
functioning of the Faith. That always did and does fall under the area
of responsibilty of the House.The fact that individuals elevate the
station of the Guardian above what you would wish is a matter of
personal belief.I am also concerned about the growing reliance on such
reference sources as Refer or Lights of Guidance.Not that the are
harmful in themselves but that they can give a false sense of knowledge
by easy access to information.Having information does not mean one has
acquired wisdom which is surely one of the exhortations Baha'u'llah
lays upon us.For the record 'God Passes By'is not Scripture, neither is
Nabil's Narrative but to deprive oneself of studying
those two books would be to miss out on essential elements of
understanding what it is to be a believer.That is what I always teach
my students and will continue to do so.Anything that narrows our
capacity to grasp an understanding of this wonderful Revelation, is
contrary to the Teachings of the Blessed Beauty as I understand it.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
First, let me assure Derek that I have read The Dispensation... a
number of
times. Indeed, I am sufficiently antiquated that it was one of the
things I
read before declaring. Nevertheless, his references to it are still
beside
the point.
A
From asadighi@ptialaska.netTue Apr 9 15:05:47 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 10:22:44 -0800
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Deportment
Dear Sir,
I just posted two instances of where I believe the Covenant has been
challenged. Should I go on or this is enough? There is plenty more and I
will be more than glad to drag them out regardless of who is going to be
shamed by them. You asked for them and you will have to answer for all
consequences.
Just for the record, I have much respect for you and I find you to be an
honourable coworker in His Cause. I am truly sorry that you have chosen to
use your considerable talent in trying to silence those whose views you do
not approve.
Although I do not consider you to be a voice of all members of Talisman I
posted the two instances and there are others who have posted similar
samples of outrageous remarks made against the institutions of the Faith. I
trust you will allow your sense of fairness to guide you rather than
emotional outburts.
Arsalan
>[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
>
>Arsalan,
>
>You wrote:
>
>> For the sake of clarification, I have not accused any one
>> person of anything. I have not accused anyone of
>> Covenant-Breaking.
>
>I don't intend to push you, but I fail to see how the above
>statement clarifies anything. You certainly have accused
>*someone(s)* of Covenant-breaking. Let me review just a few of
>your comments.
>
>First you wrote:
>
>> The problem is precisely that the authority and the legitimacy
>> of the House has been challenged within Talisman over and over
>> again.
>
>For your information, challenging authority and/or the legitimacy
>of the House of Justice is precisely the reason that people are
>declared Covenant-breakers and tossed out from the community.
>Are you not aware the significance of your charges? Do you
>really think that you can go about willy-nilly throw such
>accusations about and think you won't be called on it?
>
>When I pressed you for examples and specifics, you wrote:
>
>> I will also be more than glad to post the incidents that I find
>> to be challenges to the Covenant and are an attempt to
>> undermine the Administrative Order. If that is the wish of the
>> friends, I will be happy to do so.
>
>Yes, it is the wish of this friend for you to post such
>"incidents". In fact, I've been waiting for it all day.
>
>How do you square this comment with your latest backpeddling that
>you have not accused anyone of Covenant-breaking? Did you change
>your mind during the past couple of hours? If not, produce your
>proof and examples!
>
>Then we have the following lame excuse:
>
>> The only reason I have not done that so far is because I
>> thought it was quite obvious, did not want to accuse any one
>> person of any wrongdoing, and did not want to cause unnecessary
>> confusion.
>
>While you may not wish to accuse any *one* person of any
>wrongdoings, you certainly seem to have no problem accusing
>*everyone* on Talisman of Covenant-breaking.
>
>Also, what is this for not wanting to cause "unnecessary
>confusion"? You have single-handedly caused a massive amount of
>grief to everyone by accusing each and everyone of us as being a
>Covenant-breaker and now wish not to confuse anyone?
>
>Well, I'm confused!!
>
>ahang.
>
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comTue Apr 9 15:05:54 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 11:16:34 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: Male Initiation Rites
bulk
Dear Talismanians
I seem to recall that the Bab wrote that 18 years after conception, a
person was to hold a meeting thanking those who had raised them etc.I
have never seen that the Blessed Beauty abrogated that, in which case
that would be a rite of passage for all.I have thought of playing
around with the idea any comments?
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
At 11:26 AM 4/9/96 EDT, Bill wrote:
>Wow. Sohreh's response that we've outgrown any need for rite of
passage
>ceremonies is stunning. Are there others who feel that way?
> Eager to hear more,
> Bill
AOf course it can be argued that the above discussion of rites of
passage
unnecessarily complicates the whole issue. This view again can be
valid as
any other interpretation of reality!
" For every thing, however, God has created a sign and symbol, and
established standards and tests by which it may be known. The
spiritually
learned must be characterized by both inward and outward
perfections..."
Abd'u'l-Baha
(Secret of Divine Civilization, page 33)
Best Regards,
Alex B. Tavangar
From a003@lehigh.eduTue Apr 9 15:15:22 1996
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 15:06:26 EDT
From: a003@lehigh.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: (fwd) Re: Religion,scienceand relig...
Dear Tony,
Please forgive me for responding to Talisman, but I noticed that you had
cc'd there, and I thought that these thoughts might therefore be of
general interest.
I must say it is such a pleasure to share in your thoughts, and they are
helping me understand who Baha'u'llah was or is.
The "edge" of our understanding seems to be on which side of the issue of
what constitutes scripture. As you mentioned: "If I dont assume the
Prophets appear to explain particle physics or the specific physical
process by which human biological forms evolved then it does not matter
if 'applied reason' within its own domains of physics or history or
biology arrive at certain understandings which differ from scriptural
statements. Perhaps the problem is not one of Prophetic statement being
overthrown by reason, perhaps the problem is our understanding of what
constitutes scripture."
Last night at Feast, a long passage from Abdu'l Baha in *Some Answered
Questions* was read explaining the Resurrection of Christ in metaphorical
terms. Abdu'l Baha emphasizes in unmistakably strong language that the
purpose of Christ was spiritual, not material; that his teachings, his
example, his life, were all dedicated to the world of the Spirit; that
the meaning of the resurrection was spiritual, not material. I couldn't
help but think of you. I said to myself, "Yes, Tony's right! "
I also couldn't help but think of Abdul'Baha's clear exposition later in
the book about the validity of the Virgin Birth (not to bring up that
topic again, but only to suggest that Abdu'l Baha believes as you do,
Tony, in the need to interpret text spiritually, yet he
also maintains certain "scientific" views as part of that spiritual
reality.
I very much loved your comments about words as corpses: You said, "It's
not the words it is the "meaning" of the words that constitutes the
*Revelation* the breaking through, the rupture of old forms, explanations,
meanings. This is very profound to me, an actor, who must interpret a
text that is sometimes five hundred years old, knowing how many different
ways it has been read.
"To be or not to be" means..."so what, big deal, pretty boring both
ways.
"To be or not to be" means..."to suffer, or not to suffer"
"To be or not to be" means..."to grow up, or to ever remain a child"
"To be or not to be" means..."to engage socially, or to enter the
spiritual domain.
From age to age the interpretation *needs* to be changed. There is no
*right* way to interpret. But it can be done in a way which
violates the text.
I realize there are items of Baha'i Scripture that don't make sense (to
me), they don't seem to add up logically or rationally. I must admit
they are very few and fairly easy to overlook or "rationalize". I try to
find logical reasons why "such and such" is maintained. Shoghi Effendi
says we are not allowed to represent Baha'u'llah on the stage. Well,
that's the death of drama as we know it, perhaps, but I accept
it. I remember when I first learned that Baha'is were exhorted to lead an
absolutely chaste life before marriage, I thought that was absurd, unfair,
and impossible. Over a period of time, I realized, that if chastity
could be achieved, things would probably be better, I would be happier.
Does one's sexual behavior really constitute appropriate territory for
revelation? I thought it didn't. Is it really appropriate for Shoghi
Effendi to make comments about the performing arts when he himself had
never written a play or acted a part?
When I accepted being a Baha'i, I accepted the jurisdiction of the Cause
over this part of my life, the workings of my mind, reality itself.
I don't see why what is called science should fare any better.
I eventually came to understand the Wisdom of the Cause. Should not
scientists also take that attitude? Now, it is logic that brings me
to this supposition, and therefore you are right, rationality does in the
end reign supreme. It also seems logical that scientists would be the
hardest to convince of this.
But that sounds flippant. Yet, I don't see how we can logically separate
off a part of what is clearly a part of Revelation--i.e. the Virgin Birth,
that man evolved "independently" of animals (I hope I'm not
misunderstanding Abdu'l Baha's teachings)--under any pretext. Rationality
and Faith serve each other as helpmeats, but what you suggest seems to
allow Rationality to violate Faith. What I suggest seems to allow Faith
to violate Rationality. Yet simply saying that the Revelation of
Baha'u'llah and its authorized interpretations (that cannot be
reinterpreted) can be ignored if it disagrees with "science" seems to me
to be avoiding the conflict in a way that is even more damaging.
Damaging because it allows exemptions for belief under the pretext of
science under the slightest cause. Whose science? There must be a truce.
Science must not say such and such is "wrong", but strive to understand
within it's limited capacities. Faith must recognize it's responsibility
to logic and science and, as you say, not emphasize the importance of such
matters in its life.
I guess that's my opinion. Sure sounds like it. But I am looking to
watch it evolve by learning from your response.
yours sincerely and devotedly,
Bill
From a003@lehigh.eduTue Apr 9 17:42:01 1996
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 15:20:28 EDT
From: a003@lehigh.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Initiation Rites
Dear Alex:
Thank you for your beautifully written and insightful post.
The Lakote Tradition is very wise. I also agree that ceremonies need to
reflect who we are and what society we wish to build, and it's very
difficult to clearly see that these days. Yet, we must begin somewhere.
There is a need I think.
Yours sincerely,
Bill
*-----------------------------------------------------------*
* Phone:610-867-9251 William George *
* Theatre Artist *
* 908 E. 5th. St. *
* Bethlehem, Pa 18015 U.S.A. *
*___________________________________________________________*
From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduTue Apr 9 17:43:12 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 15:20:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Donald Zhang Osborn
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: jwalbrid@indiana.edu
Subject: Words in Maqsud & SMD (was: several recent postings on content)
Allah'u'Abha!
With the sincere hope that it might help the tone and content of exchanges
on Talisman, I am posting excerpts from two of the many tablets of Writings
which mention the power of words and the importance of their proper use--
Lawh-i-Maqsud and Lawh-i-Siyyid Mahidi-i-Dahaji. From time to time there are
postings (of which Bill G.'s 3/30 posting on "Contemptuous language" and
recent discussions of "flame wars" are but recent examples) complaining about
excesses of language or disagreeable tone, etc. This is yet another effort
to address this issue.
Furthermore, I suggest once again to the list owner, John, that some
passage from the Writings (perhaps from the below) be included in the list
guidelines as an indication of the spirit that should guide one's drafting of
messages to be posted on Talisman.
Ever since I first signed on to Talisman I noted a difference between the
postings & exchanges on it and on other Baha'i related lists. This has been
due in part to the high quality of some of the discussion and information, as
well as to the posting of translations of some Writings. In addition, some
difficult subjects have been discussed often at some length. On the other
hand, however, there has also been a very negative aspect to many postings,
reflected in the language used, and an unnecessary politicization of some
issues. In addition there have been some very negative inadvertant postings
which I would not mention but for the fact that only on Talisman among all
Baha'i lists (in my experience) have private postings inadvertertantly posted
to the group caused such bad feelings--elsewhere inadvertant postings are
hardly noticed.
The following excerpts are from the two tablets I am aware of which use
the word "talisman." Lawh-i-Maqsud has been the subject of a recent
discussion on this list, in part because it discusses the role of scholars in
the community. It also has some clear and unequivocal counsels as to how the
learned should choose their words.
Lawh-i-Siyyid-i-Mahadi-i-Dahaji in part is concerned with assistance to
God and teaching and avoiding that which would increase dissent and strife.
In it, Baha'u'llah also makes counsels regarding one's utterance and the use of
language. The man to whom it was addressed later broke the Covenant.
I have underscored some parts of passages below. One passage, beginning
"Human utterance is an essence which aspireth to exert its influence..."
appears in both tablets as well as in another.
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
LAWH-I-MAQSUD (Tabled of Maqsud) (1 excerpt)
"No man of wisdom can demonstrate his knowledge save by means of words.
This showeth the significance of the Word as is affirmed in all the
Scriptures, whether of former times or more recently. For it is through
its potency and animating spirit that the people of the world have attained
so eminent a position. Moreover words and utterances should be both
impressive and penetrating. However, no word will be infused with these two
qualities unless it be uttered wholly for the sake of God and with due
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
regard unto the exigencies of the occasion and the people.
"The Great Being saith: Human utterance is an essence which aspireth to
exert its influence and needeth moderation. As to its influence, this is
conditional upon refinement which in turn is dependent upon hearts which are
detached and pure. As to its moderation, this hath to be combined with tack
and wisdom as prescribed in the Holy Scriptures and Tablets.
"Every word is endowed with a spirit, therefore the speaker or expounder
should carefully deliver his words at the appropriate time and place, for the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
impression which each word maketh is clearly evident and perceptible. The
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Great Being saith: one word may be likened unto fire, another unto light, and
the influence which both exert is manifest in the world. Therefore an
enlightened man of wisdom should primarily speak with words as mild as milk,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
that the children of men may be nurture and deified thereby and may attain the
ultimate goal of human existence which is the station of true undrstanding and
nobility. And likewise He saith: One word is like unto springtime causing
the tender saplings of the rose garden of knowledge to become verdant and
flourishing, while another word is even as deadly poison. It behoveth a
prudent man of wisdom to speak with utmost leniency and forbearance so that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the sweetness of his words may induce everyone to attain that which befitteth
man's station.
"O friend of mine! The Word of God is the king of words and its pervasive
influence is incalculable. It hath ever dominated and will continue to
dominate the realm of being. The Great Being saith: The Word is the master
key for the whole world, inasmuch as through its potency the doors of the
hearts of men, which in reality are the doors of heaven, are unlocked. No
sooner had but a glimmer of its effulgent splendor shone forth upon the
mirror of love that the blessed word 'I am the Best - Beloved' was
reflected therein. It is an ocean inexhaustible in riches, comprehending
all things. Every thing which can be perceived is but an emanation there
from. High, immeasurably high is this sublime station, in whose shadow
moveth the essence of loftiness and splendor, wrapt in praise and adoration.
"Methinks people's sense of taste hath, alas, been sorely affected by the
fever of negligence and folly, for they are found to be wholly unconscious
and deprived of the sweetness of His utterance. How regrettable indeed that
man should debar himself from the fruits of the tree of wisdom while his
days and hours pass swifly away. Please God, the hand of divine power may
safeguard all mankind and direct their steps towards the horizon of true
understanding."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
LAWH-I-SIYYID-I-MIHDIY-I-DAHAJI (Tablet to Siyyid Mihdiy-i-Dahaji)
(two excerpts)
"Indeed thou didst grasp the significance of rendering assistance unto God
and didst arise to achieve this through the power of wisdom and utterance.
Say: To assist Me is to teach My Cause. This is a theme with which whole
Tablets are laden. This is the changeless commandment of God, eternal in the
past, eternal in the future. Comprehend this, O ye men of insight. They that
have passed beyond the bounds of wisdom fail to understand the meaning of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
assisting God as set forth in the Book. Say: Fear ye God and sow not the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
seeds of dissension amongst men. Observe ye that which hath been enjoined
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
upon you by your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Knowing. He knoweth the reality
of victory and hath taught it to you with an utterance that the vain
imaginings of them that rove distraught in the wilderness of doubt can never
corrupt.
"O My Name! Suffer all created things to quaff once again from this chalice
which hath caused the seas to rise. Kindle then in the hearts the blazing
fire which this crimson Tree hath ignited, that they may arise to extol and
magnify His Name amidst the adherents of all Faiths."
**
"Should anyone perceive the sweetness of the following passage in the Tablet
revealed in honour of Nabil of Qa'in, [Nabil-i-Akbar. See p. 135.] he would
readily comprehend the significance of assistance: Human utterance is an
essence which aspireth to exert its influence and needeth moderation. As to
its influence, this is conditional upon refinement, which in turn is
dependent upon hearts which are detached and pure. As to its moderation,
this hath to be combined with tact and wisdom as prescribed in the Holy
Scriptures and Tablets.
"O My Name! Utterance must needs possess penetrating power. For if bereft of
this quality it would fail to exert influence. And this penetrating
influence dependeth on the spirit being pure and the heart stainless.
Likewise it needeth moderation, without which the hearer would be unable to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
bear it, rather he would manifest opposition from the very outset. And
moderation will be obtained by blending utterance with the tokens of divine
wisdom which are recorded in the sacred Books and Tablets. Thus when the
essence of one's utterance is endowed with these two requisites it will
prove highly effective and will be the prime factor in transforming the
souls of men. This is the station of supreme victory and celestial dominion.
Whoso attaineth thereto is invested with the power to teach the Cause of God
and to prevail over the hearts and minds of men.
"O My Name! The Day-Star of utterance, shining resplendent from the
dayspring of divine Revelation, hath so illumined the Scrolls and Tablets
that the kingdom of utterance and the exalted dominion of understanding
vibrate with joy and ecstasy and shine forth with the splendour of His
light, yet the generality of mankind comprehend not.
"The reason why the subject of aid and assistance hath time and again
streamed and will continue to stream from the Pen of Providence is to warn
^^^^^^^
the friends of God lest they engage in activities that would give rise to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
strife and turmoil. It is incumbent upon them, one and all, to diligently
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
seek ways to help the Cause of God in such manner as We have explained.
This is but a token of His grace especially conferred upon His loved ones
that every one of them may attain the station characterized by the words:
`Whoso quickeneth a soul hath verily quickened all mankind.'"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduTue Apr 9 17:44:23 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 12:02:02 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: 68 democrat party convention/free speech/archives
Hi,
Not to detract in any way from the excellent points Dr. Cole
elucidated, but I thought that the reason the Democrat party
lost power was that they had to finally break with their
southern consituency because of differences over civil rights
(more or less what the protestors wanted??).
Democracy is full of ironies. At least what has been
reported is President Lyndon Johnson (of Texas) knew that
when his party hestitantly put civil rights on the political
agenda they would ultimately lose to the republicans as his
fellow southerners broke away from the other parts of the
democrat party. So, by doing what was morally right (passing
civil rights legislation), a situation was established where
control of the political agenda was yielded over the long
run to those (republican party) generally not supporting
(progressive) social change.
It is amazing to realize that people like Hubert Humphrey (a
leading northern liberal) supported the sandbagging of civil
rights issues up through the mid 60s (I think ?) so that the
democrats could keep their coalition together. There must
have been some big time sweating of bullets in those days.
I always wonder if either Kennedy would have been able to
provide more cohesion within the democrat party during the
difficult late 60's and early 70s if they had survived.
Any feedback is appreciated,
EP
ps, apparently archival talisman materials have been referred
to (I haven't had time to read most of the garbage posted on
talisman lately). I've been working an extra job, and have
been a bit under the weather, so I haven't had time to look
for any of the stuff yet. Please send private mail with any
requests for old postings (please indicate subject and/or
aouthors) and I'll put them on my "things to do list".
> Date sent: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 12:48:05 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Juan R Cole
> To: "Richard C. Logan"
> Copies to: Arsalan Sadighi , Talisman
> Subject: Re: Defamation
...snip
> I am untroubled by the fact that these sorts of constraints on freedom of
> speech are necessary to the establishment of freedom of speech. 60s
> "Free Speech" advocates who wanted the right to incite students to trash
> buildings were in the wrong. The resulting violence at the 1968
> Democratic Convention fatally weakened the Democratic party and opened
> the way for a half-century of Republican dominance, exactly the opposite
> result the radicals were aiming for. I marched against the War, as a
> pacifist, and was a conscientious objector. But I never committed or
> advocated committing violence. Marcuse is full of it.
From banani@ucla.eduTue Apr 9 17:47:16 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 12:02:44 -0700
From: Amin Banani
To: TLCULHANE@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Religion,scienceand relig...
Ahhh, dear Terry--
The "vision" as you have described lifts my spirit--indeed, to me this is
the value of religion. If it is the "cause" of contention, it is better to
be without it (paraphrased from 'Abdu'l-Baha).
love,
Sheila
> Dear Bill ,
>
> I appreciate your concerns . *Truth * is one . It has however many
>names and paths of which Bahau llah provides a very powerful one . It is not
>*Reality * i want to divide into distinct analytic categories; I do recognize
>that there are distinct pathways to reality . reason and revelation being two
>of those pathways . They are analagous to the masculine and feminine
>principle which takes form biologically , intellectually , socially and
>metaphysically. In some sense the masculine principle is reason , the
>feminine principle is revelation and the ineractive realationship betwen the
>two for the first time in history my finally give us a sense of what it
>"means" "to be"human. . Both of these principles proceed from one source ,
>the *Source* that is *Being* itself. Revelation is, in my view, a particular
>self-disclosure (tajalli ) of *Being * . Those souls who have a special
>measure of "receptivity" to this self -disclosure we call Prophets or
>Manifestations. I do not think it necessary to attribute some form of
>waking, walking omniscience to Prophets in order to surrender my heart to the
>self -disclosure of *Being* which they represent and make known to us .
>
> The Prophets represent an especially powerful and pregnant vision of
>human possibilities for self realization ( that is the true self) or in Abdul
>Baha's words of "how to be and how to live." I surrender to their ethical
>and spiritual vision because it is in accord with the evolving or unfolding
>*nature* of *reality* . The laws which the Prophets annunciate , those
>provisions of their "revelation" which constitute the Divine Commands are
>meant , as in the reltionship between a lover and a beloved , to draw us
>closer to the *nature * of our true selves and become a mean for us to
>paricipate in the *Presence of Being *.( guess why I think the House of
>Worship is so essential ) This is how I understand Baha u llahs statement in
>Gleanings when he exhorts or pleads with us that if we would detach ourselves
>from the world - that is the existing social constructions of reality which
>limit our vision - we would " . .gain a true knowledge of our own selves -a
>knowledge which is the same as the comprehension of Mine own Being. "
>
> One of the means , in my view , by which this "knowledge is apprehended
>is the systematic application of reason , which has evolved its own forms ,
>methods , ethics and so forth . Most frequently we refer to this as science
>and it can arrive at truths independent of revelationas well as the truths
>expressed by revelation. The revelation provides the ground within which
>applied reason has meaning . There are other means by whch this knowledge may
>be ascertained as well ; poetic form , music- dance etc. All of these are
>pathways , portals to reality . If I dont assume the Prophets appear to
>explain particle physics or the specific physical process by which human
>biological forms evolved then it does not matter if "applied reason " within
>its own domains of physics or history or biology arrive at certain
>understandings which differ from scriptural statements. Perhaps the problem
> is not one of Prophetic statement being overthrown by reason, perhaps the
>problem is our understanding of what constitutes scripture.
>
> As we have already discussed a good deal of what Bahais call "scripture"
>is a response to specific questions and concerns of specific individuals. I
>take it as necessary to assume that Baha u llah or any of the Prophets had to
>respond in a manner which would be understandable to the person asking the
>question based on the limitations of the one asking the question who
>presumable had less insight into the evolving strucure of *Reality*. That
>science might demonstrate the inaccuracy of a "scriptural "statement" ought
>to of no less concern than what appear as contradictory statements within
>scripture itself.
>
> It is the underlying vision ( disclosure of Being)and its principles
>that which constitutes scripture , in my view, rather than the particular
>examples or words used in a given explanation. It s not the words it is the
>"meaning" of the words that constitutes the *Revelation * the breaking
>through , the rupture of old forms, explanations , meanings . This process
>must be re-enacted in every Dispensation , within every generation and every
>individual . So this is why the specific form of explanation or examples are
>not important to mein themselves. Knowledge of them is important to disclose
>the vision and its principles If we do not re-enact the principles
>presented to us - the means by which we participate in the self -disclosures
>of *Being* we reduce , unintentionally I think, the *revelation * to a dead
>letter . It is no longer the living word. It is only as "living word" that
>the *revelation * can unfold the meaning of my life and yours in the context
>of ". .an ever advancing civilization." In this process apllied reason can
>be a very valuable tool as can poetry and music and theatre. These forms ,
>which are also evolving with our evolving capacities , can assist us - and I
>believe are meant to - to distinguish the specific time bound application of
>the written revelation from the underlying vision and principles which
>constitute *Revelation*.
>
> I understand the Prophet as creating a model for us of how to understand
>and approach *reality * and participate in the dymanic unfolding of *being *
>within my soul and the Cosmos. It is that model -its vision and principles-
>which are my primary concern rather than the specific situation in and of
>itself which the Prophet addressed . If my focus is on the specific situation
>, explanation , or examples being used by the Prophet them I may well miss
>the underlying vision , miss the principles being expounded and miss the
>opportunity for the prophet to "disclose " to me "how to be and how to live"
>in terms of the unique constellation of divine attributes/names which
>constitute my true self.
>
> The focus on the form of the explanation or the specific example quickly
>leads us to professing adherence to the *revelation * concieved as the words
>themselves. A poet might say this way lies madness. What happens over and
>over again is that we profess belief but are unable to live that belief. Not
>because the *revelation* is deficient but because we have confused the
>revelation with its words or time bound examples. Five hundred years from
>now I hope the world will be a vastly different place than it is now and
>that many of the specific problems Bahau llah addressed in the last half of
>the 19th century will be resolved.That being the case the specific issues
>Bahau llah addressed will not be that instructive to the world 500 years
>hence. What will be instructive is the model of *reality* disclosed by Bahau
>llah , its underling vision and principles and the example the Prophet
>provided us of how to apply that model ; of how to engage the world.
>
> Bil ,l thank you for taking the time to write . I look forward to more of
>our conversations. They have helped me better understand not only my own
>views but hopefully gleaned a morsel or two of the fathomless ocean of Bahau
>llah's *revelation * that marvelous body of work which allows us to discover
>and participate in the *nature* of *Reality* - to live in the *Presence 0f
>Being.*
>
> warmest regards,
> Terry
Sheila Banani
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comTue Apr 9 17:48:53 1996
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 96 14:06:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: "asadighi@ptialaska.net"
<"asadighi@ptialaska.net"@esds01.mrgate.bmoa.umc.dupont.com>,
talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Deportment
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Arsalan jan,
If it helps the situation, please be assured that none of us gets
up in the morning and say, hey, today is a good day to harass
poor Arsalan.
The exchanges occurring during the past few days are indeed
regrettable and I for one love nothing better than for all of us
to turn a new leaf. As such I extend my hand in friendship; let
bygones be bygones.
As I approach the age of perfection (Shoghi Effendi said at 40 we
reach "kamal"), and few gray hair, I'm beginning to realize that
we need all sort of views in the Baha'i Faith and it OK for folks
to say the sort of things that has been said on Talisman. The
Faith is not that fragile that we need to jump up and down every
time somebody says something that seems to us to be a bit
inconsistent with institutional pronouncements. I like to think
that the House and the NSAs are more broad-minded than that.
There is no question that with any new insight or view, there
will those who will push back. (You weren't around when I was
taking a lot heat for suggesting that Quddus was a Manifestation
of God; in fact some of the friends wrote to the Institutions
complaining about what I was saying, but that's ancient history.)
Now these new views are either right or wrong, and the only way
to determine which, is to analyze the underlying arguments. And
that's precisely the mission of Talisman: to go where no man has
gone before and in the process to debunk worthless arguments.
So, dear Arsalan, my humble suggestion is for us to roll up our
shirt sleeves and engage each other's arguments. Insist folks
prove their case. But along the way lets give each other a bit
of room to find our path to the Beloved....
much love, ahang.
ps. speaking of debunking, the just-posted Tablet of Nine
Brewers seems like a easy target... Have at it ...
From 72110.2126@compuserve.comTue Apr 9 17:51:35 1996
Date: 09 Apr 96 16:23:04 EDT
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Covenant Crime Watch
Dear Talismanians,
Although I've sent a private message to Arsalan in response to his last
post on Talisman to me, I would like to address the wider issue raised
in all this brouhaha.
I would phrase the question this way: "What does the faithful Baha'i do,
and what does she not do, when she feels that someone or some group has
challenged the Covenant?"
Obviously, I want in this discussion to elevate the discussion beyond the
personal accusations which have recently taken place, which I feel have no
place in our discourse.
So let's use a hypothetical here: Jane Q. Believer logs on to her beloved
Baha'i or non-Baha'i chat room here on the Internet, and someone else
says "You know, I just don't agree with the Universal House of Justice's
recent decision to build the Arc. I think, personally, that we ought to
spend that money on helping the poor instead of building these huge,
ornate monuments."
Now, I didn't just make up that example -- I've heard it at feasts, in
private discussion, and on the Internet, too. Just about everywhere
Baha'is gather over the past decade or so the question has been raised,
in my experience.
So here are three possibilities our friend Jane might utilize:
1. She posts her opinion, which disagrees and points
out why she thinks the Arc ought to be built now;
2. She disagrees with the original poster vehemently,
and accuses them of challenging the Covenant;
3. She privately writes to the Universal House of
Justice, asking them to investigate and rule.
So -- which would you choose?
For me, number one fills the bill. Since I don't see myself as a self-
appointed Covenant gendarme, number two wouldn't be right for me. But
if the discussion went on, became heated and was obviously unresolvable,
I might utilize number three as a last resort.
If I did so, I would send a private, personal letter. We have discussed
at length here on Talisman the proper way to address the Universal House
of Justice, and have gone over communications from them which indicate
that they dislike being petitioned from a group of Baha'is, a practice
they have compared to old-world politics. I would certainly refrain,
and this comes from personal experience, from attempting to canvass the
community for support of my own views.(8-))
No crime can be more heinous for a Baha'i than breaking the Covenant, so
accusations that publicly mention names and associate those names with
"challenging," "undermining" or "potentially breaking" the Covenant are
much more serious than most Baha'is treat them.
If someone were to say, for instance, that it was really Tony Lee who
murdered Ron and Nicole (a serious charge, no?) then they should have
been in contact with the authorities first, they should have been in
possession of evidence to support their charge, and they should be making
such a serious accusation *after* the proper authorities had already
made their investigation and charged Tony with the crime.
We have been told again and again, by 'Abdu'l-Baha, by the Guardian, by
the House and the Hands, that it is not the place of individual Baha'is
to judge or publicly comment upon the firmness in the Covenant of
other Baha'is, have we not? Then, by publicly charging anyone with the
serious, indeed spiritually deadly, charge of Covenantal crimes, we take
on the role of the House, do we not? For me, that kind of presumption,
where individuals attempt to function as Assemblies or Hands or even
the Supreme Body, does not bode well for their spiritual health or the
goal of healthy discourse in the community.
That is why, in my humble view, Talisman as a list has been organized in
the manner it is now organized. This list functions as a sphere of
public discourse where accusations of Covenantal crimes are off-limits
and not acceptable. In order to have civilized discourse, we need to
abide by that rule, do we not?
Unfortunately, many of the newer Talismanians or the younger participants
may not realize that such charges have been used to effectively silence
many Baha'is in the past, and that such tactics have a long history within
the Baha'i community. Indeed, many of the innovative thinkers in the
Faith -- Corinne True comes to mind, as does Dorothy Baker -- had similiar
accusations levelled at them when they attempted to express their ideas in
the Baha'i community at large.
So perhaps we can all agree to abide by the list rules, and keep our
ideas about the relative firmness or weakness in the Covenant where they
apply to other believers to ourselves. After all, to presume to judge
someone's intent, state of mind, spiritual condition or firmness by one
or two posts on an Internet network, without even meeting the person,
would seem to be the height of folly. If we do have suspicions, then by
all means we ought to make them known to the proper authorities. But
in so doing, we ought also to take into consideration the scope of the
world's problems and the limited time the Institutions have to indulge our
suspicions.
Oh, and one more thing -- let's not confuse disagreement with lack of
firmness or obedience. Many longstanding, devoted Baha'is disagree with
the actions administrative bodies may take, and yet are firm as the
proverbial rock. I seem to recall the Guardian foreseeing a time when
even he would disagree with the Universal House of Justice, and yet the
democratic majority would prevail, he stipulated. Perhaps we need, after
all this, to each develop a wider latitude in our tolerance for divergent
opinion about our beloved Faith. As Bill Sears used say, it takes all
kinds to make a world religion.
Love,
David
From meghas@sparcom.comTue Apr 9 17:52:04 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 05:34 PDT
From: Megha Shyam
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: The current uproar on the Talisman
April 9, 1996

Dear fellow Talisman brothers and sisters:
Enough is enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What behavior do we exhibit in a public forum of name calling, accusing
and what ever else.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP THIS NON SENSE PLEASE NOW
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ALL OF YOU WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THIS DIALOG, PLEASE
TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND KEEP SILENT FOR 24 OR 48 HOURS
AND REFLECT ON YOUR CONTRIBUTION TO THIS MESS.
IS THIS WHAT WE VALUE AND BRING TO CREATE A NEW WORLD ORDER?
IS THIS WHAT BAHA'I LOVE AND FRIENDSHIP IS ALL ABOUT?
IS THIS THE STANDARD WE WANT TO EMULATE AND LEAD THE WORLD?
SHAME ON ALL OF US TO HAVE GOTTEN THIS OUT OF CONTROL AND OUT
OF CHARACTER OF THE BAHA'I MODEL.
IF WE HAVE PERSONAL DISGREEMENTS INVOLVING PERSONALITIES,
PLEASE DO NOT WASTE EVERY BODY'S TIME TO READ YOUR GRIPE.

LEAVE THE REST OF US ALONE SO THAT WE ARE NOT DRAWN INTO THIS SITUATION.
WHERE IS THE COMPASSION, UNDERSTANDING AND EFFORT TO COMMUNICATE
WITH EACH OTHER? DID WE THROW THIS OUT THE WINDOW?
THIS BEHAVIOR IS WORSE THAN WHAT I SEE ON C-SPAN IN THE
US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. NEED I SAY MORE!
IS THIS A FORUM TO GET GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF IDEAS AND DEBATE IN
A SCHOLARLY FASHION?
THE BEHAVIOR EMULATES 3 YEAR OLDS DOING ONE UPMANSHIP TO GAIN
ATTENTION. IS THIS WHAT WE WANT?
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! COOL IT FRIENDS!
IF YOU DON'T, PEOPLE WILL START
DROPPING OUT TO LISTEN TO YOUR MANY IDEAS.
WE DO NOT WANT HATE AND VENOM CURRENTLY SEEN ON THE TALISMAN!!!!!!!!
Thank you very much
Megha Shyam




From meghas@sparcom.comTue Apr 9 17:54:42 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 05:40 PDT
From: Megha Shyam
To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Question
Hello Juan:
As I clean up and organize my documents accumulated over the past
30 years or so, I cam across a photocopy of two articles by E.G. Browne;
the material was published apparently in 1918 (though I could not swear to
it). The first one is about the Bab and the goes on for 6-7 pages. There is
a account 0f Shia's also about 6-7 pages.
The material looks like it came from either a encyclopaedia or a vollection
of religions.
You have any clude as to the source of this material. I shall gladly send you
photocopy if that would help.
Thanks
Megha Shyam

From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduTue Apr 9 17:55:35 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 16:57:08 -0400
From: Donald Zhang Osborn
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: "Colorblindness" & race unity
Allah'u'Abha! Here is another small piece of possible interest to the
Friends. I wrote it a few years ago and shared it with some friends at the
time. As I think about it, there has been no (or virtually none?)
discussion of race on Talisman during the time I have been subscribed to it,
even though racism is recognized in the Writings of our Faith and among many
scholars as the/a key problem in American society (and the world).
Interesting. The following is not very sophisticated, but perhaps it will
get some reaction.
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
_____________________________________________________________
"COLORBLINDNESS" AND RACE UNITY IN ONE BAHA'I'S PERSPECTIVE
Don Osborn
The foundation of race unity is love of God, and recognition that He
created us all from the same substance and wishes to behave towards each
other with love and fellowship and with tolerance and righteousness. The
achievement of race unity involves practical matters including how to treat
racial differences that have long been misunderstood (often willfully) and
made the cause for division. Many passages in the Baha'i writings can help
us in this effort, providing as they do a range of teachings relating to
various situations and attitudes we may inherit.
It is helpful for us as Baha'is to periodically deepen on our Faith's
teachings relating to race unity in order to improve our understanding of
their import and our application of their principles. This is especially
the case as we teach the principle of the oneness of humankind and offer our
community as an example of evolving race unity.
A couple of years ago during a consultation on race unity a I heard a
statement to the effect that we as Baha'is are seeking "racial blindness" or
"blindness to racial differences" in our social interactions. Although this
did not sound quite right to me I held my peace lest I be the one mistaken
and resolved to find out what the Baha'i writings actually do say about
racial differences and how we are to look at them. I felt this was
important not only for my own deepening, but also because one commonly hears
similar terminology used in the larger society as a positive quality. If
Baha'i teachings really do offer a different perspective on race, it is
important to know what that is and how appropriately to phrase it. I would
like to share some of what I found during my personal research relating to
this issue on the chance that it may be of interest to some of the Friends.
The first step I took was to divide the phrase that prompted this
effort into its two parts: "racial differences" (or differences we call
racial, since there is in reality only one human race) and "blindness" (and
other metaphors of lacking a sense of sight or shutting it off). I then
dealt with the latter part first, as it seemed less complex, and saved the
former, which was after all the crux of the matter, for later attention.
Blindness is usually used metaphorically in a negative context in the
Baha'i writings - blind in heart, inwardly blind, spiritual blindness, blind
imitation, etc. These are conditions which prevent one from perceiving the
Manifestation of God and understanding His message. Therefore, we should
never seek blindness, but rather its opposite. Indeed, Baha'u'llah gives
the utmost importance to vision:
"In this Day whatsoever serveth to reduce blindness and
to increase vision is worthy of consideration. This
vision acteth as the agent and guide for true knowledge.
Indeed in the estimation of men of wisdom keenness of
understanding is due to keenness of vision." Tarazat,
Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 35.
While vision is good, however, there are some ways in which we are
instructed to train our faculty of sight. For instance: "Let your eye be
chaste,..." (Lawh-i-Hikmat, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 138), and "Thine eye
is My trust, suffer not the dust of vain desires to becloud its luster."
(Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 322). Closing off one's
sight is used metaphorically in a positive sense in this context:
"O Son of Dust! Blind thine eyes, that thou mayest
behold My beauty; stop thine ears, that thou mayest
hearken unto the sweet melody of my voice; empty thyself
of all learning, that thou mayest partake of My
knowledge; and sanctify thyself from riches, that thou
mayest obtain a lasting share from the ocean of My
eternal wealth. Blind thine eyes, that is, to all save
My beauty; stop thine ears to all save My word; empty
thyself of all learning save the knowledge of Me; that
with a clear vision, a pure heart and an attentive ear
thou mayest enter the court of My holiness." Hidden
Words, Persian #11.
This may be understood to mean that we should refocus our perceptions on the
spiritual in order to realize our highest potential as fundamentally
spiritual beings.
In the same vein, Baha'u'llah gives counsel on how to relate to each
other: "Shut your eyes to estrangement, then fix your gaze upon unity."
(Kalimat-i-Firdawsiyyih, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 67). It is interesting
to reflect on the parallels between the distractions of the material world
and estrangement on one hand and spiritual growth and the building of unity
on the other, and on how metaphors involving the faculty of sight are used
in both of the last two quotes.
The writings on racial differences appear at first to be a
little less straightforward, as they seem to instruct us both to see racial
differences as beautiful and to not look at them.
`Abdu'l-Baha for instance compared differences in color and other
aspects of physical appearance among humans to the variety found in a garden
and elsewhere in nature. Such diversity, He said, is beautiful to behold,
indeed more pleasing than homogeneity, and should not be the cause of disunity.
"Let us look rather at the beauty in diversity, the
beauty of harmony, and learn a lesson from the vegetable
creation. If you behold a garden in which all the plants
were the same as to form, color and perfume, it would not
seem beautiful to you at all, but, rather, monotonous and
dull. The garden which is pleasing to the eye and which
makes the heart glad, is the garden in which are growing
side by side flowers of every hue, form and perfume, and
the joyous contrast of color is what makes for charm and
beauty. ...
"The diversity in the human family should be the cause of
love and harmony, as it is in music where many different
notes blend together in making the perfect chord. If you
meet those of different race and color from yourself, do
not mistrust them and withdraw into your shell of
conventionality, but rather be glad and show them
kindness. Think of them as different colored roses
growing in the beautiful garden of humanity, and rejoice
to be among them." Paris Talks, pp. 52-3.
"In the realm of existence colors are of no importance...
In the vegetable kingdom the colors are not the cause of
discord. Rather, colors are the cause of the adornment
of the garden because a single color has no appeal; but
when you observe many colored flowers, there is charm and
display.
"The world of humanity, too, is like a garden, and
humankind are like the many-colored flowers. Therefore,
different colors constitute an adornment." The
Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 45.
On the other hand, Baha'u'llah tells us "Close your eyes to racial
differences and welcome all with the light of unity" (quoted by Shoghi
Effendi in The Advent of Divine Justice, p. 37). And 'Abdu'l-Baha elaborates:
"Let them look not upon a man's color but upon his heart.
If the heart be filled with light, that man is nigh unto
the threshold of his Lord; but if not, that man is
careless of his Lord, be he white or black." (Selections
from the Writings of `Abdu'l-Baha, p. 113).
If racial differences are beautiful, then why are we instructed to shut
our eyes to them in order to be able to achieve unity? Perhaps these
passages counsel us not to consider racial differences as distinguishing
characteristics and to focus instead on what unifies us. That unifying
factor would be our spiritual reality. It is certainly significant for the
context of this discussion that we are told to close off and redirect our
sight rather than to strive for sightlessness or "blindness." What is
prescribed is the action of training our perception rather than a state of
impairment or absence of perception.
However, noting the similarity between the passages beginning "Shut
your eyes to estrangement..." and "Close your eyes to racial
differences...," one must ask if there are any ways in which racial
differences themselves may still be viewed as barriers to unity? Perhaps
racial differences are comparable in some ways to material goods. We are
permitted to enjoy material things but not to the point where they come
between us and God. Similarly, racial differences are in no way a problem
unless we allow them to prevent unity.
Differences that we call racial have, of course, historically been one
of the major factors defining lines of division among peoples. These
differences, however, have not been the cause of racism. It is
misunderstanding of the differences that has been at the root of racism.
The answer, ultimately, is not to try to ignore them but to learn to see
them for what they are and are not.
The answer, then, is not "racial blindness" or "color blindness." Nor
is it the means to achieve race unity. Not even for individuals in early
stages of overcoming racism should this terminology be used, and it should
never ever be used to describe Baha'i teachings on race unity. What we are
seeking is, as was so nicely put in The Vision of Race Unity, "to look at
the racial situation with new eyes."
Diversity in appearance should be a source of joy to a unified
humanity, just as variety in cultural traditions should be a source of
strength to it. Ultimately, however, they are insignificant, as it is what
is in the heart and how we relate to God that is important. By recognizing
that the fundamental human reality is found on the spiritual level we can
appreciate the diversity in which God created us and "discern with the eye
of oneness His glorious handiwork..."
___________________________________________________
From 0007368608@mcimail.comTue Apr 9 17:56:03 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 15:51 EST
From: Dariush Lamie <0007368608@mcimail.com>
To: "talisman@indiana.edu"
Subject: Re. Tribunal merging
-- [ From: Dariush Lamie * EMC.Ver #2.3 ] --
Dear Sen,
You wrote:
>The Universal Court of Arbitration and the International Tribunal are the
same. When the Baha'i State will be established they will be merged in the
Universal House of Justice.>
Please, let me know how you can back up the above statement. If it is from the
Guardian, please send me a copy of the entire passage. From my limited
undrestanding, UHJ is the legislative Body and the International Tribunal would
be the Executive body.
In the Baha'i Common Wealth, we have many different functions and the function
of UHJ, Parlament, Government, International Tribunal, ... will not merge. To
back up my comment, allow me to refer to the following statement:
".... the election of these souls (members of the Parlament)
who are chosen
by the NSA, .. must be confirmed by the upper house, the
congress and the
cabinet and also by the president or monarch so these persons
may be the
elected ones of all nations and the government. From among
these people
the members of the Supreme Tribunal will be elected." SWA
306
As you can see even the election of the Supreme Tribunal will be very much
different from the election
of the UHJ.
So, I do not think that the Tribunal will be merged with the UHJ.
Regards,
Dariush
From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduTue Apr 9 17:59:22 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:08:34 -0400
From: Donald Zhang Osborn
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: "Backwhiting" & gratuitous remarks
Allah'u'abha!
As I try to clear my disks of items which may be of interest to some, I
thought I'd forward this. It addresses no specific situation on Talisman,
but fits in with a number of postings I've made concerning the use of
language. It may also be of interest in light of discussions of alienation
and hurt within some Baha'i communities. Some carelessly harmeful ways of
speaking can and should be eliminated.
The Friends are aware of Baha'u'llah's prohibition of backbiting and of
the negative effect backbiting has upon others.
I would like to venture that we also beware of other forms of speech which,
while not as harmful as calumny, also have negative impact on hearts. One
of these "white backbiting" (like "white lies"; I like to use
"backwhiting")--negative remarks which are rationalized as having some
merit; the other is gratuitous remarks--things which are not really
negative, but which could just as easily not be said and leave everyone
better off. These are important as we are not only instructed by
Baha'u'llah to avoid backbiting--"Breathe not the sins of others so long as
thou art thyself a sinner"/1--but also to cultivate our use of
language--"Take heed that your words be purged from idle fancies and worldly
desires...."/2
My point is that even though there may sometimes be a fine
line between what is backbiting and what is not, the territory
just this side of backbiting is more often than not one in which
the use of language still does not conform to the high standards
to which Baha'u'llah holds us and therefore should also be
avoided.
"Backwhiting" includes negative remarks made in conversation
under cover of "consultation," but not in a true consultative
spirit or setting. Gratuitous remarks are unnecessary evalua-
tions of others (e.g., complimenting someone by comparing them
favorably with one who is absent [is it necessary to put the
absent one in an unfavorable light?] or the common remark that
someone "is a Baha'i but just doesn't know it" [why detract from
the compliment by judging the state of their knowledge?]). The
ways people casually use language can easily be misinterpreted
and even alienate others, since, as Abdu'l-Baha tells us, "hearts
are liable to estrangement."/3
Certainly we need to be able to speak about each other in
community life, so to err on the side of silence might also be
detrimental--thus moderation is needed. Although perhaps hard,
it is necessary to watch one's words. Baha'u'llah's emphasis on
"deeds not words" is in part, I think, not because words are not
important, but because they are SO important. What can help in
this are qualities of detachment, forbearance, and purity of
heart, as well as help from the friends.
In three places,/4 Baha'u'llah repeats the following lesson:
"Human utterance is an essence which aspireth to exert its
influence and needeth moderation. As to its influence, this
is conditional upon refinement which in turn is dependent
upon hearts which are detached and pure. As to its
moderation, this hath to be combined with tact and wisdom as
prescribed in the Holy Scriptures and Tablets."
He goes on to say:
"Every word is endowed with a spirit, therefore the speaker
or expounder should carefully deliver his words at the
appropriate time and place, for the impression which each
word maketh is clearly evident and perceptible."/5
Abdu'l-Baha's description of how we can help each other
avoid backbiting can also help us help each other avoid
"backwhiting" and dispose of gratuitous remarks:
"If any individual should speak ill of one who is absent,
it is incumbent on his hearers, in a spiritual and friendly
manner, to stop him, and say in effect: would this
detraction serve any useful purpose? Would it please the
Blessed Beauty [Baha'u'llah], contribute to the lasting
honor of the friends, promote the holy Faith, support the
Covenant, or be of any possible benefit to any soul? No,
never!"/6
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
1. Hidden Words. Backbiting and calumny are specifically
prohibited in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, in the same section (19)
which prohibits murder and adultery.
2. Lawh-i-Hikmat, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 138.
3. (I don't have the citation for this).
4. Lawh-i-Hikmat, Lawh-i-Maqsud, & Lawh-i-Siyyid-i-Mihdiy-i-
Dahaji, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, pp. 143, 172 & 198.
5. Lawh-i-Maqsud, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, pp. 172-3.
6. (I don't have the citation for this).
From nineteen@onramp.netTue Apr 9 18:01:18 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 15:38:22 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Juan Cole
Subject: Re: Defamation
> Marcuse is full of it.
Quite saying mean things about my buddy Marcuse. I don't agree a a
Baha'i with some of his ideas, but he is clearly to my mind one of the
most important contempory thinkers. Revolution on the campus was quite
understandable under the circumstances. But I think you realize that.
I'm very proud, despite some excesses, of the moral stand taken by my
contempories in the Speech Movement, Anti-war activities, and the much
maligned "Flower-power" or Consciousness movement. The few Baha'is we
have today had their eyes opened as a result of those, anomalous acts of
humanitarianism.
Power to the People
Richard
From meghas@sparcom.comWed Apr 10 00:49:27 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 07:15 PDT
From: Megha Shyam
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Dearest friends:
This week there has been some psotings on Krishna and Gita; so I
thought I would add my contribtuion to this dialog.
> "1) Although in the Bhagavad Gita Krishna is acting as Arjuna's
>charioteer, according to Hindu tradition he was indeed a prince (raja),
>or , if you prefer, king. After he slew Kamsa he founded a capital at
>Dvaraka in Saurashtra where he made Rukhmini his queen. In his role
>he was very active in helping to destroy wicked kings and demons all
>over India, and this is one reason he helps the Pandavas." <
>You are correct. The Krishna tradition is rich and interesting. In the
>Gita he is only identified as Arjuna's charioteer. The prince tradition,
>I suspect, is later.
The problem with these two comments is that they are only partially
correct. In the great epic Mahabharata (an epic of nealr 1,000,000 lines
of which Gita is about 1600 lines) Krishna indeed comes into play on
several key occassions; for example when Pandava's common wife
is helpless as her robe is getting dismantled, she cries to Lord Krishna
to save her; on other occasions as their wedding to Draupadi Krishna
appears again as a friend of the Pandavas; he also attempts to negotiate
between the two cousins and decides to go with the Pandavas after weighing
many possibilities.
The storu in Saurastra is a parallel story about Krishna, about his childhood
and mischeveous nature, how he was abducted as a child to be saved from
his villanous uncle etc. There are many stories within stories about Krishna
and his older brother Balarama sung by Narada before and later in the 15th
century by Mira Bai in North India, and Tyagaraja in southern India that became
the basis of classical karnatac music in south India. My father who has a lot
of musical talent used to construct the whole story of Krishna just from the
songs of Tyagaraja (possibly 12th century) and had given many concerts with
this theme during the 40's and 50's.
> "2) There is a school of thought that sees the Gita as a type of
>Brahmanical response to Buddhism and Jainism and that Arjuna
>represents this position, but there are other interpretations such as the
>one that focuses on the more universal problem of conflicting values
>(Goods). Arjuna is paralyzed because he realizes that in going to battle
>he will likely be involved in the killing of many of his own kinsmen."
<
>That latter does not negate the former, particularly given the fact of the
>Brahmanical reworking of the Mahabhatra. Certainly what we see in the
>Gita is the Brahmanical take on these universal problems, which is at
>odds with how Buddhism and Jainism would respond to them.
The key aspects to consider here is that MahaBharata was created possibly
over a 100 year period. Even though the credit goes to Vyasa for having
written it, most scholars believer that it was written by a group of people
over time. The basis of this is style, use of language, evolution of the epic
among others. In the modern post independent India, there was a
Mr. K. M. Munshi, a scholar of some reknown, was the publisher of a series of
books on vedic culture and epics to the larger audience and I remember
reading them in the 50's with this thesis. (The publishing society he
founded is
called Bharatiya Vigya Bhavan).
The argument made above has very limited scope as Arjuna's paralysis happens
several times in Mahabharata; once during the great game of dice, during the
period when the pandavas are banished, when they hide their weapons on a tree,
when Arjuna dresses as a woman etc.
Not much clout is given to the comaparison to Buddhist or Jain tradions in the
interpretation of Krishna and Mahabharata.
> "3) I understand the technical differences between the Hindu concept
>of Avatar and the Baha'i concept of Manifestation." <
>You might want to explain that to Richard C. Logan.
I have often wondered about the Baha'i view of manifestation as applied to
Krishna; in my opinion, most western Baha'is, when they speak of Hindu
gods or culture speak with absolutely no understanding of what they are
talking about. The concept of manifestation needs a lot of understanding
and thought when it comes to expanding this to Krishna (and yes even to
Buddha). There is not much guidance from Abdu'l Baha or Shoghi Effendi on
this subject.
> "It is interesting to note, however, that during my research on the
>Baha'i Faith in Central India I found that Baha'i village teachers freely
>used the term avatar in reference to Baha'u'llah. Indeed there are
>numerous bhajans (religious songs) that refer to him as the Kalkin
>Avatar. Thus my use of the term was not technical but rather in the
>sense of a cross-cultural symbol." <
>Sure and it is to be understood as a redefining of the avatar notion.
I suspect that many Hindus would have trouble relating to Krishna, Mohammad
and Baha'u'llah in the same station. This is an area of considerable soul
searching that we have to do as Baha'is in articulating to that audience. The
reference Bill G points to Kalkin Avatar can be intepreted in exactly the
opposite
manner as the Avatar in Kali Yuga which Baha'is may not like. But there are
hundreds of traditions in India which refers to the arrival of an Avatar at
the time
of catastrophe (just as Matsya - as a fish, Narasimha as a man-lion etc)
I would agree that there is astronmg need to identify with cultural traditions
in ionterpretion.
> "4) I am sure Gandhi struggled with the text, as he did with most
>issues, but there is little doubt in my mind that his reading was
>fundamentally different from those right wing Hindus centered at Poona
>who used it as a justification to call for the violent overthrow of the the
>unjust British Raj." <
>No question about that; however, the question is does the Gita easily
>lends itself to the Gandhian approch.
Gandhi was not a scholar in the vedic and other literature of hinduism; he
should be looked upon more as a thinker attempting to understand for
himself what some of the writings meant. Achyarya Vinoba Bhave was trained
as a scholar and interpreter; in fact there is a very nice book on his
interpretation
of Gita to his fellow prisoners during the struggle for independence. These
lectures were given in Marathi and translated into English and published in
1958.
This book was actually given to me by my father as his book of choice.
In addition to Vinoba, the other interpreter, I like is Dr. Sarvepalli
Radhakrishnan,
once a President of India in the early 60s. I had the previlge of meeting
him when
he was the vice-president of India before I came to US in 1961. He wrote quite
a bit when he was a Professor of Eastern Religions and Philosophy at Oxford
University. His interpretation of Gita was published by Harper Colophon Books
in 1948. It is still my first choice to read and reflect upon.
I hope I have added some information to this dialog
Megha Shyam

From asadighi@ptialaska.netWed Apr 10 00:50:17 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 15:09:55 -0800
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu, Doug_Moore@admin.state.ak.us
Subject: Re: minority view
Here we go again. It does not matter that this is clearly explained in the
Writings, now the new interpretation is that, yeah, right, but to a limited
degree we should not disagree with our divinely ordered institutions. Not
that it may depend, but it 'must' depend on the type of decision and the
time passed before we can openly criticize the institutions. Can anyone
show me anywhere in the Writings where this is allowed? Or do we have some
problem with the translation of some Tablet again?
Well, I say surely there must not be any time when one can unilaterally
decide to open the doors wide open and criticize the institutions for
discharging their duties. There are mechanisms in place to help the
institutions to make the right decision, and in case of errors to correct
them and to learn from their mistakes. I do not believe that short of
appeals to higher authorities we can assume the right to decide when an
institution has gone astray and that the decision they have made is one that
gives us the permission to criticize them. Please reconsider.
Arsalan
Juan Says:
>
>As for pulling behind the Assembly when a decision has been made, surely
>there must be a time limit on this? And surely it must depend on the
>type of decision? Otherwise, a year later it would still be impossible
>for someone to criticize a policy that had been adopted and proved a
>disaster. The idea that the assembly itself would recognize the disaster
>has not always been borne out; people become attached to their pet projects.
>
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes
From sfotos@gol.comWed Apr 10 00:51:39 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 08:09:07 +0900 (JST)
From: Sandra Fotos
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women on the House (was: minority view)
Ahang wrote:
> For example, in the case of the issue of
>the women on the House, even though I happen to firmly believe
>Baha'u'llah never intended for women to serve on the Universal
>House of Justice and that they never will, I support continual
>research in this area as we're becoming enlightened about many
>other interesting aspects of our history and Writings.
If Ahang and the other dear list members will permit me, I'd like to add my
own interpretation of this issue.
As someone who attends a great number of meetings, conferences, etc. I have
had many opportunities to observe and participate in issue-based discourse
involving both men and women interlocutors. One thing has always stood out
clearly and that is the almost inevitable response by many men to
suggestions made by women--no matter how cogent. Quite often, the men begin
to argue, pre-empting the woman's discourse turns, overlapping and doing
other performative speech acts related to asserting dominance. In other
words, the content of the utterance has been ignored in favor of a
situational discourse of power.
I have seen this on Baha'i committees and administrative bodies as well.
Since we are all products of our environment, why should we expect
otherwise at present?
Similarly, I feel that if, under the current socialization patterns for men
and women, women were House members, it is possible that something similar
might take place, and the flow of divine guidance in the form of feelings
of inspiration and agreement in response to others' utterances might be
blocked. Anyone who has served on committees or other bodies where
consultative processes produce unexpected and wonderful results will
acknowledge that, if one began to argue for the sake of establishing power
and dominance during such consultation, few, if any good results would be
obtained.
Of course this is an entirely temporary phenomenon caused, as Hannah has
often reminded us, by artifical constructions of gender roles. Therefore, I
suggest that in the future, when true equality prevails and women are
allowed an unobstructed voice (and can use this voice wisely and
objectively), the social law regarding women on the House will be modified.
Best,
Sandy
Dr. Sandra S. Fotos
Associate Professor of English
Senshu University, Tokyo
***********************************
All that which ye potentially possess can,
however, be manifested only as a result of your
own volition.
Baha'u'llah
************************************
From jrussell@bsl1.bslnet.comWed Apr 10 01:01:11 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 18:00:56 -0700 (MST)
From: Judith Russel
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: love and unity
Dear friends,
In my community several years ago, there was a guy who was going around
telling the newer Baha'is that those who lived in city "X" were under the
shadow of a Covenant Breaker. He discouraged anyone from moving there
(to help save the Assembly...I actually moved there with no idea this
was going on, from another locale) and said things like this city was
u"under a gray cloud" etc.
When I heard this, I contacted the local assembly of city "X", of which
I was secretary.
The "Covenant Breaker" (please permit me this- of course a person can never
declare another person a C.B.) also served on the Assembly.
The C.B. also considered himself more scholarly in his approach to the Faith.
He had many, MANY Baha'i books which he had read, as well as copies of the
Bible and Qu'ran for reference. Again, apologies for calling anyone a
C.B.- it's just for the story.
Anyway, the Auxiliary Board was contacted. A meeting ensued between the
Board member for Protection and the L.S.A. with the member present.
The Board member was satisfied the member was not intentionally causing
disruption in the Faith.
I offer you this outline-form story in order to point out one thing- imagine,
JUST IMAGINE the damage done by telling Baha'is that so-and-so is a C.B.
It was destroying love and unity. It was QUITE awful. Before it was over,
3 other people on the L.S.A. and one from another community were also called
questionable Baha'is. These are Baha'is who have since been appointed Ass't.
Aux. Bd. members as well as heading MAJOR initiatives community-wide in city
"X" and representing the Faith on National TV.
My point is, please, I just want to state the point of bringing up this
painful time in my service to the Faith, that accusing anyone or any
group of people of Covenant Breaking is antithetical to the spirit of
love and unity in the Baha'i Faith.
If there are such concerns, that's what Auxiliary Board members for
Protection are for. If any one individual seems to agitate to destroy the
Faith, it should be brought to the attention of one's Aux. Bd. member.
Then it is going through channels set up for it in the Faith and doesn't
cause fear and consternation.
Thank you for your patience and understanding for allowing me to state my
opinion.
Judy Russell
From A.Aniss@unsw.EDU.AUWed Apr 10 01:01:52 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:29:27 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re INSTANCE # 2
Dear Talismanians,
Having read the posting by Arsalan titled INSTANCE # 2 dated 9 Apr 1996
I have come to conclussion that we the members of talisman require clear
clarification from The list owner, Nima and Arsalan.
First of all, Arsalan should also send the first bit of the email that
details the transmision protocol of the message by john as it will tell
us much more information relating to whom that post was entended and
how was Arsalan come to its possession?
There are a number question that arise in one's mind when that letter is
studied. But most of all has john written that letter?
other questions such as below come in my mind:
1. Who are the Gentelmen and who is the lady that john is refering to?
2. what sort of organization they were thinking of forming?
3. what were the messages that have to be erased?
4. what are the list owners intensions about Talisman execpt
to those he has already stated as list rules? are there hidden
intentions?
5. this relates to section five of the letter listed as a to f:
a) direct confrontation with whom?
b) make what sort of trouble?
c) what sort of information and ideas to put into circulation?
d) what sort of heat?
I would like to see clarification on the following statement also:
>They're starting to eat their horses inside the fortress; let's stay
>safely in the trenches and not jump up and charge the cannons. This
>means that we need to keep doing what we are doing: no committees,
>manifestos, or unnecessary martyrs. In particular, now is the time to
>lay on earnest charm.
In this letter Nima's name is mentioned. Is he envolved in something?
Nima has been recently very quite compared to months before, is he
following some sort of instructions? I think Nima also need to
clarify his stance in regard to this letter.
Having said the above I am not accusing any one of any thing, I like
enlightenment on what has expired and my God the content of the letter
can have implications for Talisman. So john should clarify the situation.
with regards,
Ahmad.
_______________________________________________________________________
^ ^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss, Tel: Home [61(2)] 505 509 ^
^ Bio-Medical Engineer, Work [61(2)] 694 5915 ^
^ Neuropsychiatric Institute, Mobile 019 992020 ^
^ Prince Henry Hospital, Fax: Work [61(2)] 694 5747 ^
^ Little Bay, N.S.W. 2036, ^
^ Australia. Email: A.Aniss@unsw.edu.au ^
^ Web Page: http://acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.au/~ahmada/ ^
^_______________________________________________________________________^
From sohazini@OntheNet.com.auWed Apr 10 01:12:12 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:33:39 +1000 (EST)
From: Sadra
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Talisman postcard
Distinguished Talizens--
Greetings from sunny Gold Coast, Australia! I've been here for a little
under a week visiting my folks and have been out of touch with Talisman. So
what new point of contention have we been arguing (or, rather, beating each
other over the head with cyber-clubs) about recently ? :-) I've been
following some of the threads with interest -- particularly the Religion &
Science thread between Terry and Stephen -- and, time permitting, will join
in at some point.
Take care one and all!
Warmest, Nima
From margreet@margreet.seanet.comWed Apr 10 01:13:12 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 19:53:27 -0700
From: "Marguerite K. Gipson"
To: Juan R Cole ,
"Arsalan J. Sadighi"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Defamation
Hello, I thought this was a two way street? Just as you could offer your POV
and I could reciprocate. And from that there would be some sort of
*agreement*, but don't you dare tell me that I HAVE to accept your POV as
the Gospel Truth. It does run both ways.... I have just as much right to
say *I disagree* as you have the right to say that *you agree*!
If a bunch of people are eating a bucket of Shit, and they all say it is
delicious and absolutely wonderful... What makes you think that I will
follow along? I have the knowledge and understanding to make my own
choices. Thank you very much, I don't have to follow anyone without checking
my values, morals, and my own truth based from my knowledge, education and
intuition.
And if you are not *undermining the Covenant*by saying what has been said--
(Yes, I have references), what do you call it? a tea social?
Yes, there have been many views on this and from this group that just raise
the hair at the back of my neck and it has cause me to just wonder. Just
from some of the *ways* the discussion is going, I have many a times said
the *remover of difficulties* prayer over my computer so it doesn't crash
from all the negative discussion.
A rocket scientist could figure it out in just a matter of minutes? Why
can't you? Don't you see that the direction this is going is taking all
right into the *mental test* spoken by Peter Khan just months ago? What
will it take before that wake up call?
*MENTAL TEST ALERT**MENTAL TEST ALERT**MENTAL TEST ALERT
Besides, the Women on the House issue belongs to the Women of the World. I
have only run into about 3 women so far up in arms over it, so it must not
be that big a deal. And the women on the Women's network have more
important things to discuss right now anyway... and it has not come up for
discussion yet. Like I said, there will be TRUE equality when MEN can have
BABIES.
No way on God's green planet does Arsalan owe anyone anything!!!! I have
found his post to be right in order of the Writings of this Glorious
Faith... He has stated many an item I wish I had said, but he beat me to
it... Go Arsalan!! I am very happy to have him as my friend and loving
Bahai co-worker to assist in the work necessary ahead to accomplish the task
at hand during the next 4 years.
As with anything else, there are checks and balances... and with the Bahai
Faith-moderation in all things. There might as well be several different
lists set up for each and every direction of opinions that ever was...
Warmly,
Margreet
At 05:10 PM 4/8/96 -0400, Juan R Cole wrote:
>
>
>Arsalan and Derek:
>
>1) If I were conducting a seminar at the University of Michigan, and any
>of the students behaved as Arsalan has on this net, I would
>unhesitatingly expel that student from my class. That is, if I were
>conducting a discussion of some issue, and students gave their views,
>based on the documents we had reviewed, and one of the students stood up
>and said to the others: "You cannot say that! It undermines the
>Covenant! This entire class is an exercise in undermining the
>Covenant!" This would be an attempt by this student to impose his or her
>theological views on a group of people engaged in reasoned study. It
>would be unacceptable behavior and I would not stand for it. Those
>Baha'is who confuse narrowmindedness with firmness in the covenant will
>eventually have to come to terms with the real world, where this sort of
>behavior is not generally tolerated.
> I would, incidentally, also not put up with a Christian student crying
>"heresy!" or a Muslim student attempting to stop seminar students from
>studying Rushdie's novels. That a Baha'i should behave in similar
>ways on a public forum dedicated to scholarship is a matter of deep shame
>to the entire community.
From abtavangar@geoenv.comWed Apr 10 01:13:26 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 22:55:06 -0400
From: Alex Tavangar
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: "Colorblindness" & Race Unity
Thank you Don for sharing your thoughts on the race issue. I agree that
Talisman should contribute more to achieving racial harmony in this country.
Regards,
Alex B. Tavangar
From CaryER_ms@msn.comWed Apr 10 01:13:47 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 03:03:05 UT
From: Hannah Reinstein
To: talisman@indiana.edu, Ahmad Aniss
Subject: RE: re INSTANCE # 2
Dear friends,
This entire discussion has become surreal. I'm obviously in over my head for I
don't understand what any of it means. I share an interest in Ahmad's
questions. I'm on this alias to make my small contributions in the only area
where I have any knowledge or experience. Also, I deepen from and enjoy the
usually fascinating dialogs. Unfortunately, I haven't a clue as to what is now
going on. I'd like to suggest that Ahmad's questions really call for prompt
and frank answers. That would be useful to everyone it seems.
Hannah
=========
"God loves me..... That knowledge humbles me..... I am
a big bird winging over high mountains, down into serene
valleys. I am ripples of waves on silver seas. I'm a
spring leaf trembling in anticipation." Maya Angelou
----------
From: owner-talisman@indiana.edu on behalf of Ahmad Aniss
Sent: Tuesday, 09 April, 1996 19:29 PM
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re INSTANCE # 2

1. Who are the Gentelmen and who is the lady that john is refering to?
2. what sort of organization they were thinking of forming?
3. what were the messages that have to be erased?
4. what are the list owners intensions about Talisman execpt
to those he has already stated as list rules? are there hidden
intentions?
5. this relates to section five of the letter listed as a to f:
a) direct confrontation with whom?
b) make what sort of trouble?
c) what sort of information and ideas to put into circulation?
d) what sort of heat?
I would like to see clarification on the following statement also:

From abtavangar@geoenv.comWed Apr 10 01:13:58 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 23:10:57 -0400
From: Alex Tavangar
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Words in Maqsud & SMD (was: several recent postings on content)
At 03:20 PM 4/9/96 -0400, Don Osborn wrote:
>> Furthermore, I suggest once again to the list owner, John, that some
>>passage from the Writings (perhaps from the below) be included in the list
>>guidelines as an indication of the spirit that should guide one's drafting of
>>messages to be posted on Talisman.
>
I think there would be some merit in this suggestion. I would support it.
Best Regards,
Alex B. Tavangar
From brburl@mailbag.comWed Apr 10 01:14:46 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 22:08:31 -0500
From: Bruce Burrill
To: Megha Shyam
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Regarding Gita, Krishna etc
Megha Shyam,
> "In the great epic Mahabharata (an epic of nealr 1,000,000 lines
of which Gita is about 1600 lines) Krishna...." <
There is a great deal of evidence that shows that the Mahabharata was
reworked to put forth Brahmanical ideals. And certainly the Gita is a
later inclusion into the corpus of the Mahabharata.
> "Not much clout is given to the comaparison to Buddhist or Jain
tradions in the interpretation of Krishna and Mahabharata." <
I assume that you mean by this that you feel there little evidence to show
the Buddhist and Jain influences on the Gita. Modern scholarship shows
that the Gita is hardly a seamless work, and that it is something of an
uneasy amalgam of several differing threads of thought which were
being appropriated by its Brahmanical authors. The Gita post dates the
time of the Buddha and Mahavira, both of whom represent the anti-
Vedic, anti-caste, anti-first cause forest traditions. Take a look at BG
XVI 8, 14, and 23. The Gita was both reacting to the anti-Vedic/anti-
brahmanical elements of Buddhism and taking and adapting in elements
of Buddhism that seemed to fit its world view.
> "I have often wondered about the Baha'i view of manifestation as
applied to Krishna; in my opinion, most western Baha'is, when they
speak of Hindu gods or culture speak with absolutely no understanding
of what they are talking about." <
Absolutely.
> "The concept of manifestation needs a lot of understanding
and thought when it comes to expanding this to Krishna (and yes even
to Buddha). There is not much guidance from Abdu'l Baha or Shoghi
Effendi on this subject." <
The Baha'i notion of manifestation is at best an uneasy fit when applied
to Krishna, but when applied to the Buddha, it works not at all without
doing an injustice to the Buddha. Momen's book on Buddhism nicely
illustrates this problem.
> "The reference Bill G points to Kalkin Avatar can be intepreted in
exactly the opposite manner as the Avatar in Kali Yuga which Baha'is
may not like." <
It would be interesting to me and I am sure to many others here if you
would expand on this.
Thanks for your msg.
Bruce
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Apr 10 01:15:01 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 15:12:10 +1200
From: **Golden Eagle**
To: Ahmad Aniss , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: re INSTANCE # 2
Ahmad wrote:
>
>I would like to see clarification on the following statement also:
>
>>They're starting to eat their horses inside the fortress; let's stay
>>safely in the trenches and not jump up and charge the cannons. This
>>means that we need to keep doing what we are doing: no committees,
>>manifestos, or unnecessary martyrs. In particular, now is the time to
>>lay on earnest charm.
Ditto my friend. Ditto. But why ask a hyena to sing and mule to mate and
sincerely expect a melody and a foal? Huh? Stone the crows, matey! Give
us a break, sport!
R
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Apr 10 01:15:20 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 15:32:27 +1200
From: **Golden Eagle**
To: Sandra Fotos , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women on the House (was: minority view)
Dear Sandy,
You wrote:
>Of course this is an entirely temporary phenomenon caused, as Hannah has
>often reminded us, by artifical constructions of gender roles. Therefore, I
>suggest that in the future, when true equality prevails and women are
>allowed an unobstructed voice (and can use this voice wisely and
>objectively), the social law regarding women on the House will be modified.
Might men become mothers then also? You viewpoint runs contrary to the
explicit Coventantal intent regarding this matter which has been clearly
and repeatedly expressed by the House.
As for men hogging discursive space. T'ain't nuthin' compar'd to wot men
do in 'nuther contekts...
R
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpWed Apr 10 01:16:40 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 13:01:45 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Ten Books on the Philosophy of Science
Dear Friends:
John Dale suggested the posting of a list of books on the philosophy of
science, a suggestion which Arsalan vigorously seconded. Below, I
give the first half of such a list. I will post the other half later.
Some of the books (1 & 5) are not philosophy of science books per se.
However, I include them because they, in my opinion, better describe
the way that scientists think and work than do the philosophy of
science texts.
Only half the list is posted now, mainly because I spent too much
time searching through the books to find good quotes to help capture
your interest. As a result, even with only five books, this posting
is too long.
Especially if you are reading the science and religion thread, I
suggest reading these quotations (and the books to, for that matter).
In particular, I strongly suggest reading the quotations from Nobel
Laureate Steven Weinberg's book, #5 in the list.
Books related to the Philosophy of Science
1. "The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning," Paul
Davies (Penguin, 1992). Introductory. Davies is the best of the modern
science popularizers. In this book, which I highly recommend, he looks at
modern cosmology and related physics. He "claims that the success of
mathematics in describing nature points to a deep and significant link
between the human mind and the organization of the physical world. His
startling conclusion is that the universe is no accident, but is structured
in a way that provides a meaningful place for thinking beings. By means of
science, we can truly glimpse the mind of God." (Backjacket.)
2. "Physics and Metaphysics: Theories of Space and Time," Jennifer Trusted
(Routledge, New York, 1991). Introductory level for beginning students of
the philosophy and history of science.
"Jennifer Trusted argues that modern science is based not only on observation
and experiment but also on metaphysical beliefs and that this aspect of
inquiry has frequently been ignored or neglected. Taking the period from the
mid-eleventh century to the mid-twentieth century, the author discusses the
role of the Christian religion and of more secular philosophical principles."
(Backjacket.)
3. "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d. Ed.", Thomas S. Kuhn (Univ.
Of Chicago, 1970). The classic philosophy/history of science book:
"This work is among the most influential academic books of the past
quarter-century (almost a million English copies sold and at least nineteen
translations) and has given rise to an unmanageably vast secondary
literature. The terms here coined, 'paradigm,' 'paradigm change,' and
'scientific revolution' are now commonplace . . . even in many less
scientific domains.
"Kuhn's readers are far from agreeing even on the precise content of his
central theses, let alone their validity. Interpretations of Kuhn . . . are
extraordinarily varied. . . . neither his expository style, which seems so
easily misunderstood, nor the superficiality of its reception can entirely
explain the distortions and misunderstandings typical of the popular image of
Kuhn." (From "Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn's
Philosophy of Science," Paul Hoyningen-Huene.)
4. "Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn's Philosophy of
Science," Paul Hoyningen-Huene (Univ. Of Chicago, 1993). The celebrated
'reconstruction' of Kuhn's masterwork.
"I first met Paul Hoyningen in mid-August 1984 . . . I rapidly discovered
that Hoyningen knew my work better than I and understood it nearly as well.
More important, where I did think his understanding deficient, I found him
both uncommonly able to listen and also appropriately stubborn in defense of
his views. Our discussions often grew passionate, and it was not always
Hoyningen who changed his interpretation. No one, myself included, speaks
with as much authority about the nature and development of my ideas."
(Thomas S. Kuhn).
5. "Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature,"
Steven Weinberg (Pantheon, 1992). Nobel Laureate Weinberg, perhaps the
world's most respected working scientist, is also the best writer on physics
today. This book is superb. It represents, nay, defines, mainstream
physics. This is partly because Weinberg says what he thinks.

On the philosophy of science:
"The value of philosophy to physics seems to me to be something like the
value of early nation-states to their peoples. It is only a small
exaggeration to say that, until the introduction of the post office, the
chief service of nation-states was to protect their peoples from other
nation-states. The insights of philosophers have occasionally benefited
physicists, but generally in a negative fashion--by protecting them from the
preconceptions of other philosophers."
"Physicists do of course carry around with them a working philosophy. For
most of us, it is a rough-and-ready realism, a belief in the objective
reality of the ingredients of our scientific theories. But this has been
learned through the experience of scientific research and rarely from the
teachings of philosophers."
"From time to time . . . I have tried to read current work on the
philosophy of science. Some of it I found to be written in jargon so
impenetrable that I can only think that it aimed at impressing those who
confound obscurity with profundity. Some of it was good reading, and even
witty, like the writings of Wittgenstein and Paul Feyerabend. But only
rarely did it seem to me to have anything to do with the work of science as I
knew it."
"It is not in metaphysics that modern physics meets its greatest troubles,
but (in) the epistemological doctrine of positivism . . ."
"Metaphysics and epistemology have at least been intended to play a
constructive role in science. In recent years science has come under attack
from unfriendly commentators joined under the banner of relativism. The
philosophical relativists deny the claim of science to the discovery of
objective truth; they see it as merely another social phenomena, not
fundamentally different from a fertility cult or a potlatch."
From Alethinos@aol.comWed Apr 10 01:17:54 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:05:09 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Minorities and the Revisionist Movement of Talisman
Well we are at it again. Appeal to authority (this time scholarly) to
*explain* what the Guardian _really_ meant. It would seem there is some
objection to the following, because the Guardian meant another type of
democracy:
The Administrative Order of the Faith of Baha'u'llah must in
no wise be regarded as purely democratic in character inasmuch as
the basic assumption which requires all democracies to depend fundamentally
upon getting their mandate from the people is altogether
lacking in this Dispensation. In the conduct of the administrative
affairs of the Faith, in the enactment of the legislation necessary
to supplement the laws of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the members of the
Universal House of Justice, it should be borne in mind, are not,
as Baha'u'llah's utterances clearly imply, responsible to those whom
they represent, nor are they allowed to be governed by the feelings,
the general opinion, and even the convictions of the mass of the
faithful, or of those who directly elect them. They are to follow,
in a prayerful attitude, the dictates and promptings of their conscience.
They may, indeed they must, acquaint themselves with the
conditions prevailing among the community, must weigh dispassionately
in their minds the merits of any case presented for their
consideration, but must reserve for themselves the right of an
unfettered decision. "God will verily inspire them with whatsoever
He willeth," is Baha'u'llah's incontrovertible assurance. They, and
not the body of those who either directly or indirectly elect them,
have thus been made the recipients of the divine guidance which is
at once the life-blood and ultimate safeguard of this Revelation.
(World Order of Baha'u'llah, page 153)
It is rather interesting, the explanation that is. The Guardian here means
only democracy the classic *bad* type of government as opposed to
republicanism the *good* type ( I assume we are harking all the way back to
Plato here.) We will note of course that the Guardian is referring to "all
forms" of democracies. It was suggested that the Baha'i Faith really is (?)
perhaps some variation of a republic. At least that seems to be suggested, it
was difficult to tell. Assuming that this is the case we might review this
passage (and watch with amazment as it is explained away.) Here it is:
The Baha'i Commonwealth of the future, of which this vast
Administrative Order is the sole framework, is, both in theory and
practice, not only unique in the entire history of political institutions,
but can find no parallel in the annals of any of the world's
recognized religious systems. No form of democratic government;
no system of autocracy or of dictatorship, whether monarchical or
republican; no intermediary scheme of a purely aristocratic order;
nor even any of the recognized types of theocracy, whether it be
the Hebrew Commonwealth, or the various Christian ecclesiastical
organizations, or the Imamate or the Caliphate in Islam - none of
these can be identified or be said to conform with the Administrative
Order which the master-hand of its perfect Architect has fashioned.
(World Order of Baha'u'llah, page 152)
Now it would seem to me that we need to seperate out the issue of the
Institutions from the issue of free speech, if just for a moment. We know
that freedom of speech is a clearly stipulated right in the Writings. The
question is not *do* we have freedom of speech, but to what extent do we have
it. The question is not do we have a *right* to free speech but what is the
nature of the right to begin with.
This is not an easy question. I would warn anyone here not to make appeal
straight away to the Constitution, the Supreme Court, etc. etc. You will find
little help there *within* the framework of our current society. And it would
seem that from the above quotes the new world order we are building will
never be, should never be some cheap Hollywood remake of current political
standards.
More later . . .
Jim Harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From riaz.motlagh@qm.sprintcorp.comWed Apr 10 01:18:08 1996
Date: 9 Apr 1996 20:00:41 -0500
From: Riaz Motlagh
To: talisman mail address
Subject: HIDDEN WORD #5
REGARDING HIDDEN WORD #5
I see myself, the most negligent, being described here by Baha u llah. Always
trying to express the most brilliant idea, to convey the ultimate
interpretation that reconciles greatest paradoxes. Ever ready to brandish my
weapons of science or religion to silence all opposition.
I have a very sneaky ego. It sometimes hides behind wealth, sometimes behind
knowledge, at other times behind quotations. Occasionally I even think I am
virtuous !
But I know better. In this, I am a fellow-believer with Paul. That, we all
have fallen short of the Glory of God. And that if left to ourselves, we fall
all the way down to the bottom. Only He/She can lift us out of our miserable
and mean state. Only in the Glory of God can we dispense with our ego's needs
for attention and love and praise from our brothers and sisters. I ask God to
make me excellent in deeds rather than in words. You see, even here I am
competing !
Riaz
From l.droege@genie.comWed Apr 10 01:18:44 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 03:34:00 UTC 0000
From: l.droege@genie.com
To: alethinos@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: True State of Talisman
[The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
Jim...
I've been trying to stick to the issues & stay out of the fights, but
I've got to disagree with at least one point in your post:
Some of us, you must know, were not on this list the last time the
issue of women & the UHJ arose. I was not. I learned something. Even
a couple of people who were here admitted, if I recall correctly,
that a little more insight was obtained.
Of course, only those of us who were actually discussing the _issue_
learned anything; the rest (you included, I'm afraid) seemed to be
too busy pushing their own agendas to listen to what was being said
by those actually attempting to understand.
Whatever happened to the idea that an idea, once aired, becomes the
property of _all_?
Sorry, but the first couple of paragraphs of your post struck me as
more of a self-righteous "I-told-you-so" guaranteed merely to fan
the flames than an honest request for reason.
I know you are saddened and enraged by the miasma in the American
Baha'i community, but ranting & raving, however important the cause,
isn't going to accomplish anything except defensiveness and
deeper entrenchment.
Encouragement, not chastisement, is ˙űthe key.
Apologies if this comes off as harsh; I'm trying to override a
gut reaction here...
Leigh
From M@upanet.uleth.caWed Apr 10 01:19:20 1996
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 21:31:07 -0600
From: M
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: This isn't fair play! (was Re: re INSTANCE # 2)
I do not consider it fair play to raise the issue of the letter
refered to in Arsalan's "Instance #2" post and in Ahmad's subsequent post.
I distinctly remember that message, which no doubt raised a lot of eyebrows,
being promptly followed by J.W.s embarrased apology for having accidentally
posted it to the list and a request that we delete it. I was relieved by
John's second message and I promptly deleted the problematic post just as I
would hope others would have the courtesy to do for me in the event I made a
similar embarrasing gaff - which could quite easily happen.
It was apparent that the letter in question was written to vent
some frustration and anger. It was not apparent, except presumably to the
individuals for which the letter was intended, what situations,
circumstances, plans etc. were being alluded to and public speculation about
such would be, in my view, tantamount to backbiting.
Respectfully
G.
**************************************************************
Human depravity, then, has broken into fragments that which is by nature one
and simple; men try to grasp part of a thing which has no parts and so get
neither the part, which does not exist, nor the whole, which they do not
seek. (Boethius; the Consolation or Philosophy, 524 A.D.)
**************************************************************
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduWed Apr 10 01:20:04 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 22:28:29 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: tribunal merging
> The letter (on behalf) regarding the Tribunal is as follows:
>
> The Universal Court of Arbitration and the International
> Tribunal are the same. When the Baha'i State will be established
> they will be merged in the Universal House of Justice.
> (17 June 1933)
> So far as I know this has never been published, and I have only
> this sentence, cited in a compilation on World Government dated
> 5 December 1990.
Most interesting! Not the least because one would have thought that the
world legislature would be thought to evolve into / merge with the House
of Justice.
This is interesting because it also shows that the House is not strictly
limited to legislation. Among the powers set forth in its constitution
(those powers being grounded, one and all, in a specific Tablet or
a letter from the Guardian) is to promote peace among the nations, and I
think there is a power of "arbitration of disputes among the nations" or
something close to that.
Hmm. Merged in the Universal House of Justice. The institutions? The
functions?
Brent
From Alethinos@aol.comWed Apr 10 01:23:31 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 01:04:41 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Minorites(?) & Revisionist History on Talisman
My question here is this: why, when the Guardian repeatedly went to great
lengths to have us understand that this Cause was like no other and that the
Administrative Order would not resemble _any_ of the old world forms of
government do we see a continious insistance here by some, that the structure
is somehow flawed? There is no escaping that this is the conclusion that is
being driven toward. There has been an overwhelming number of posts
suggesting that the Faith is in dire need of taking on (for lack of a better
term) spare parts from the existing old world order. Specifically elements of
classical and present day liberal political thought, with a wonderful
admixture of politically correct herbs and spices.
The hereditary authority which the Guardian is called upon
to exercise, the vital and essential functions which the Universal
House of Justice discharges, the specific provisions requiring its
democratic election by the representatives of the faithful - these
combine to demonstrate the truth that this divinely revealed Order,
which can never be identified with any of the standard types of
government referred to by Aristotle in his works, embodies and
blends with the spiritual verities on which it is based the beneficent
elements which are to be found in each one of them. The admitted
evils inherent in each of these systems being rigidly and permanently
excluded, this unique Order, however long it may endure
and however extensive its ramifications, cannot ever degenerate into
any form of despotism, of oligarchy, or of demagogy which must
sooner or later corrupt the machinery of all man-made and essentially
defective political institutions.
(World Order of Baha'u'llah, page 154)
I would suggest we all _carefully_ read this passage. It is what a number of
folk have been calling for here on Talisman for a long time and is this: not
trying to make the Cause of God fit the out-moded axiologies, let alone the
political structures and adolescent conceptions of human relations and
natural rights, but rather recognizing, through the analysis, comparison, and
prayerful consideration those fundamental philosophies, conceptions, *truths*
that resonate with the Spirit released by Baha'u'llah and discoursing on how
they can be adopted and placed in such a way within this New Structure that
they can aid us all, and we all can see them evolve beyond their current
restrictions.
This is what a number of people, including myself, have been repeatedly
calling for. And I do not find much harmony between this position and what I
have seen of the ideas put forth by Juan & company. Their suggestions all
hinge on the assumption that the Cause is incomplete - and not because it is
still maturing, but rather because it lacks fundamental elements. They have,
I feel, confused the terrible stagnation of this Cause in America with these
*deficiencies*. I feel that they are off-base here.
And again I would say that it takes considerably more intellectual courage
and stamina to forge into new country and explore now possibilities than to
simply stay at home and cobble something together in Rub Goldberg fashion.
Sure, there are a lot of serious problems. Sure the community in this country
is grossly immature in comparison to where it should be (in view of the
Guardian's and the UHJ's writings.) Sure there has been abuse of power - one
of the primary signs (if you will read Plato, let alone Baha'u'llah) of
spiritual and mental immaturity. The immaturity is caused by the spiritual
diseases we have inherited as Baha'is in America, as the Guardian clearly
warned us of. The immaturity is not due to fundamental structural flaws
within the Cause or Administrative Order. Even if this were possible it is
highly inprobable that we would be able to detect such flaws at our present
stage in history. We simply have not had the opportunity to see the system
run, on its own, without undue external forces (i.e. old world order) yet.
I will again suggest that while a lot of the concerns expressed by Juan and
various folks have merit their solutions are simply headed in the wrong
direction. Can it really hurt to turn Talisman in a new direction, for a time
at least, and explore just the possibility that we _might_ have overlooked
another road??
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From CaryER_ms@msn.comWed Apr 10 01:23:52 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 05:19:22 UT
From: Hannah Reinstein
To: talisman@indiana.edu, M
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: This isn't fair play! (was Re: re INSTANCE # 2)
I have never seen it though I remember the reference to it. It never appeared
in my mailbox at any time. I would like to know where people are coming from.
This is all cryptic and confusing to me. I'd like to know where Arsalan is
coming from, for example. I'm not criticizing anyone at all. But the
atmosphere here is highly charged now and it seems reasonable to wonder why.
H.
----------
From: owner-talisman@indiana.edu on behalf of M
Sent: Tuesday, 09 April, 1996 20:31 PM
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: This isn't fair play! (was Re: re INSTANCE # 2)
I do not consider it fair play to raise the issue of the letter
refered to in Arsalan's "Instance #2" post and in Ahmad's subsequent post.
I distinctly remember that message, which no doubt raised a lot of eyebrows,
being promptly followed by J.W.s embarrased apology for having accidentally
posted it to the list and a request that we delete it. I was relieved by
John's second message and I promptly deleted the problematic post just as I
would hope others would have the courtesy to do for me in the event I made a
similar embarrasing gaff - which could quite easily happen.
It was apparent that the letter in question was written to vent
some frustration and anger. It was not apparent, except presumably to the
individuals for which the letter was intended, what situations,
circumstances, plans etc. were being alluded to and public speculation about
such would be, in my view, tantamount to backbiting.
Respectfully
G.
**************************************************************
Human depravity, then, has broken into fragments that which is by nature one
and simple; men try to grasp part of a thing which has no parts and so get
neither the part, which does not exist, nor the whole, which they do not
seek. (Boethius; the Consolation or Philosophy, 524 A.D.)
**************************************************************
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduWed Apr 10 02:12:12 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 22:48:51 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: tablet of garden of justice
what's the original word for "justice" in that Tablet?
Many thanks
Brent
From Alethinos@aol.comWed Apr 10 02:12:57 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 01:36:37 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: True State of Talisman
Dear Leigh:
I am wondering what you did learn. I mean specifically what you already
didn't know about the issue from the writings themselves, not others
opinions.
Also, as far as *pushing an agenda* I am at a loss to understand what you
mean? Do you mean the *agenda* I and others have been accused of by those who
would appear to be pushing their agendas? Do you mean the supposed *agenda*
of wanting to *silence* those who feel that woman can and should serve on the
Universal House of Justice, based on, as far as I have seen, slim evidence
and incredible suppositions?
No. You never once saw me take a stand *against* women serving on the House.
Just the opposite. I would love it if it could happen. What I have said is
that we have a clear cut answer on the issue. There are no two ways about it.
All those who continiously suggest that somehow there is a
conspiracy-of-sorts or that the House is morally inconsistant are really
pushing an agenda. When you have a continued insistence that the issue is
still open for *debate* when the highest institution within our Cause has
given a definitive answer this would seem to suggest an agenda.
If I am guilty of an agenda it is in not wanting us to spend precious time
going over and over useless speculation. And it is pointless. We have the
answer, whether we like it or not. So let us get on with things we CAN do
something about. If you or others want to indulge in idle guessing games and
twists of Arabic etymology go ahead. Walbridge has more than once asked folks
to carry on tangential discussions privately. I would suggest that.
It is not an issue, as some with well recorded persecution complexes would
have others believe, a matter of free speech being trampled upon. It is a
matter of saying "let go of it; there is nothing to be done, lets get on with
other critical issues."
SIDENOTE: (not necessarily directed at you Leigh)
And as an object lesson to some. Self-rightiousness is when you slam
someone's face against the Internet wall and sign off with a kiss and warm
fuzzies, or "gee I hope you can forgive me here" or
"apologies-in-advance-of-your-bleeding!" There is nothing more disgusting
than to see the character attacks on Talisman followed by such hypocritical
closings. If you're going to slam someone at least have the guts to do it
without pretense to "warmest Baha'i love". If you feel you have to spit on
them than do so and be done with it.
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From A.Aniss@unsw.EDU.AUWed Apr 10 02:13:56 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 16:54:16 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: its not fair play!
Dear Talismanians,
Dear ,
You wrote:
> I do not consider it fair play to raise the issue of the letter
> refered to in Arsalan's "Instance #2" post and in Ahmad's subsequent post.
> I distinctly remember that message, which no doubt raised a lot of eyebrows,
> being promptly followed by J.W.s embarrased apology for having accidentally
> posted it to the list and a request that we delete it.
I usually read all messages but I have in times ignored small portions
of e-mail messages from talisman, as far as I remember this is the first
time I have seen that e-mail which I have to say it raised my eyebrows
such that they were falling off.
In any case, why is not fair to discuss it. Is there anything to hide
John is a well educated person and can defend himself if he needs to.
the letter raises issues that are important and have relevance to discussion
that Arsalan is raising. He is asking if there is a subgroup on Talisman
that are intentionally subversive to Baha'i concepts. If the letter was
intended to a number of Talismanians, we as a whole need to know the
truth. Aren't we here to get better understanding regarding to the truth
of the matter.
I had not seen the posted letter before and if I had I would have definitely
raised the questions there and then. I have to say, I realy like to see clarification on those matters I raised in my last post.
> I was relieved by
> John's second message and I promptly deleted the problematic post just as I
> would hope others would have the courtesy to do for me in the event I made a
> similar embarrasing gaff - which could quite easily happen.
Why one has to delete that post without acertaining all its implications.
If you can state such statements as is in the letter privately and it becomes
public way should people think that your motives are honesty and have no
intentions of mischief. I can not buy that, we need sound and acceptable
resonning to be convinced that messages in that letter don't have implications
that one can derive at after reading it.
> It was apparent that the letter in question was written to vent
> some frustration and anger. It was not apparent, except presumably to the
> individuals for which the letter was intended, what situations,
> circumstances, plans etc. were being alluded to and public speculation about
> such would be, in my view, tantamount to backbiting.
Again if it will be ambigious to others why is it not to you? don't tell
me you where a recipient and you have full understanding of the background.
If in case this is so, I beg you to enlighten the rest of the members of
this list, as we are sitting in dark on this matter.
questions that arise from your posting are:
Are you envolved in that subgroup that Arsalan is talking about?
where you one of the intended receipients of that letter?
what are the frustrations and anger you are talking about?
should there be any hidden situations, circumstances, plans, etc...?
No my friend, I think we need full clarification regrading this matter.
With regards,
Ahmad.
_______________________________________________________________________
^ ^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss, Tel: Home [61(2)] 505 509 ^
^ Bio-Medical Engineer, Work [61(2)] 694 5915 ^
^ Neuropsychiatric Institute, Mobile 019 992020 ^
^ Prince Henry Hospital, Fax: Work [61(2)] 694 5747 ^
^ Little Bay, N.S.W. 2036, ^
^ Australia. Email: A.Aniss@unsw.edu.au ^
^ Web Page: http://acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.au/~ahmada/ ^
^_______________________________________________________________________^
From jrcole@umich.eduWed Apr 10 02:16:43 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 02:08:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu, Doug_Moore@admin.state.ak.us
Subject: Re: minority view
Arsalan:
I am glad to see you are back to engaging people's arguments on
substantive grounds, which is more like you. You have made important
contributions to Talisman, and you are a valued contributor, if you can
put up with all of us.
I see a contradiction between all the passages I quoted from
`Abdu'l-Baha, which are essentially Lockean in implication, and the
current Baha'i conviction that Baha'i institutions are above public
criticism. You cannot have it both ways. Either the ideals `Abdu'l-Baha
set forth and espoused are abrogated, dead and tossed on the dust heap of
history, or they are alive, vital, destined to liberate humankind. If we
are in fact to have societal institutions that are above public
criticism, more especially if these are theocratic institutions that
refuse to recognize the rights of minorities to speak once they have been
ruled against, then `Abdu'l-Baha's vision has been crushed and destroyed
and trampled upon.
I am not engaging in mere rhetoric when I say that I have had experience
of several forms of governance in which the ruling institutions are above
criticism. These include the Communist Party (where it still survives),
the Baath Party, and the Khomeinist government of Iran. I am opposed to
such systems, and I cannot accept that the beloved Faith of God, rooted
in Justice, can permanently adopt a totalitarian policy that no public
criticism of the policies enunciated by its administrators can ever be
allowed. This quashing of the speech rights of minorities is all the
more horrifying if one takes seriously the conviction of many Baha'is
that their administrative system will supplant secular governments.
I am not impressed with the argument that even though minorities' speech
rights are quashed and even though Baha'i institutions are above public
criticism, the system is divinely protected from devolving into the
exercise of arbitrary power, from becoming infected with corruption, or
from committing injustice. In the interests of the dignity of the Faith,
I refuse to give examples; but all these things have happened in a way that
can be documented. Even the way in which the NSA attempted to coerce the
speech of a Talismanian over a difference regarding accounts of recent
history makes my point.
Baha'is in Iran have suffered horribly at the hands of a government that
claims to rule on behalf of God and which rejects the right of its
citizens to criticize it publicly. They have felt the lash of the Party
of God, which rejects democratic freedoms as un-Islamic. They have been
spared from an outright genocide primarily by the pressure of the
European Union and the United Nations and Amnesty International, acting
under the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
subsequent U.N. Covenants on human rights.
For Baha'is to condemn basic principles of human rights as
contrary to God's law, and to uphold a theocratic vision that makes no
room for minority rights or freedom of conscience and speech, is to
undermine the very bases under which their lives have largely been spared
through the efforts of liberals in the EU and AI. Even if you in fact
have so stark a critique of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it
is perhaps unwise for Baha'is to so militantly declare it publicly. It
could be used against us by our enemies, in the European Parliament and
at the United Nations, to the detriment of the Iranian Baha'is.
Americans have done a very bad job with regard to race, and with regard
to the distribution of wealth, and with regard to nationalism and
militarism. But freedom of religion is an American success story, and so
is freedom of expression (despite unfortunate lapses in each). On the
other hand, *no* Middle Eastern country with the sort of Islamic
background that Baha'is have has had *any* success in providing freedom
of religion or freedom of expression, and, in fact, Middle Easterners
have failed as miserably with regard to freedom of religion (for Copts,
Baha'is, dissident Muslims, secularists) as Americans have with regard to
race.
So, Arsalan, when Iran is a tolerant paradise on free-speech and
freedom-of-religion issues, I'll be willing to listen to your suggestions
for improving on the Jeffersonian tradition. Until then, I'm more
interested in your views on race relations or some other area where we
have demonstrably failed.
Incidentally, with regard to Don Osborn's suggestion that we discuss race
relations: We have very few African-Americans on Talisman, perhaps only
one at the moment. That one is Tony Lee. And he has not been being
treated very hospitably, and I would not blame him if he signed off as a
result. So, Don, if we don't treat Tony a little better, us bunch of
white folks, having chased off our African-American, can sit about our
costly computers talking about the need for better race relations.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan